Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

CHESHIRE BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL [Lords]

CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Kingsway Tram Subway

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Transport if he can now make a statement on the future use of the Kingsway tram subway.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): Not yet, Sir, but my right hon. Friend hopes to have the report of the Technical Committee in a few weeks. The traffic, and especially the engineering, problems involved are complex and have occasioned much investigation and the preparation in detail of engineering estimates for various schemes. The engineering estimates are virtually complete, but the Committee will require a little more time to reach conclusions.

Mr. Driberg: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that reasonably rapid progress is being made, and that this most valuable subway will be preserved for some future traffic use?

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes Sir, but when I tell the hon. Member that some 30 different suggestions have been placed

before the Committee I think he will realise that a little more time is necessary to reach a definite conclusion. I am as anxious as he that there should be no unnecessary delay.

Highway Development Programme

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Transport what proportion of the 10-year programme of highway development announced by the Minister of Transport in May, 1946, has now been completed; and how much of the 800 miles of proposed new motorways has either already been built or is now under construction.

Mr. Braithwaite: Progress with this programme has been severely restricted by economic conditions. A few substantial works of major improvement have been completed or put in hand and plans have been prepared for others. A number of danger spots have been dealt with and further progress is being made in this matter in the current year. No motorways are under construction, although some preparatory planning is being carried out.

Mr. Holt: Is not the Minister aware that the whole of the country's economy has been seriously handicapped by the lack of a determined policy on behalf of previous Governments? Is not he further aware that road development offers a very high economic return, and will he see that it is not the Cinderella of Government capital projects?

Mr. Braithwaite: I am so well aware that I detained the House for some 45 minutes last Friday.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can my hon. Friend say how far back in the programme the Forth Road Bridge has been placed?

Mr. Braithwaite: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would put that question on the Order Paper.

Motorway, Lancashire

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made by his Department in purchasing land in connection with the 63 miles of proposed new north-south motorway through Lancashire; and when he proposes to authorise a start on its construction.

Mr. Braithwaite: The route is being surveyed, but no land has yet been bought for the road and I am afraid I cannot say when it will be constructed.

Mr. Holt: Is the Minister aware that many power stations in this area have difficulty in getting rid of their ashes and that, if he would only buy this land, considerable economy could be achieved in the eventual construction of these roads by allowing the power stations to put their ashes on the land now?

Mr. Braithwaite: The Lancashire County Council are at present making a survey.

Mr. Vane: Will the Minister remember that the economy of the whole country also depends on good agricultural land remaining in food production?

Mr. Poole: Before the Minister sterilises any more good agricultural land will he consider the advantage of taking off the roads, and keeping them off, some of the 250,000 surplus road vehicles which are now being run?

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. Gentleman seems to be anticipating a debate which may take place later this Session.

Parking

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport why a two hour limit is placed on parking places.

Mr. Braithwaite: A two hour limit is not always imposed. Where it is, its object is to prevent street car parks from being monopolised by long-term parking which should be done in car parks off the highway.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Has my hon. Friend considered the additional burden placed on the London traffic system by cars which are limited to two hours presumably having to be driven away to find other parking places?

Mr. Braithwaite: A working party appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) during the reign of the late Government has not yet reported. I have no doubt that this is one of the points which they have had under consideration.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport how long he has been considering the recommendations for

unilateral parking in certain streets in the West End of London; what objections, other than interference with unloading, have been raised; and when he expects to reach a decision.

Mr. Braithwaite: The recommendations were referred to my right hon. Friend's predecessor in March last. There have been objections on the grounds that the streets selected were too wide to justify restrictions, or were not congested, and that the restriction would seriously affect trade. My right hon. Friend hopes to reach a decision shortly.

Mr. Shepherd: Will not my hon. Friend come to some conclusion? Is not this a commonsense recommendation? If there is trouble between police and traders will he bang their heads together and get this experiment carried on?

Mr. Braithwaite: I would suggest that my hon. Friend puts his Question down again for Monday next.

Pedestrian Crossings

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport how many zebra crossings are permitted in Ayrshire; and what directions were given to the county council as to their location.

Mr. Braithwaite: In the county council's scheme, 22. Certain burghs, of course, have their own schemes in addition. No special directions were given to the council, but Circular No. 668 issued from the Department in June, 1951, contained some general guidance. I will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Sir T. Moore: While not wishing to worry my hon. and right hon. Friends unduly, because I realise that they have plenty on their plates already, may I ask them to investigate the allocation to Ayrshire which permits of the small village of Monkton, lying astride the main Glasgow-Ayr Road at the very gate of Prestwick Airport, being denied a crossing?

Mr. Braithwaite: We will bear these matters in mind. Ayrshire at first suggested a reduction to 26 crossings. In the end, 22 have been approved. If my hon. and gallant Friend will study Appendix 3 of the Circular to which I have referred he will find the procedure which should be followed.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport if the reports up to date indicate that the zebra crossings are fulfilling their purpose satisfactorily; and that they are suitably located and adequately distributed.

Mr. Braithwaite: The broad answer to both parts of the Question is "Yes," although finality has not been reached. Changes in location are made as necessary, in the light of experience.

Sir T. Moore: Is my hon. Friend aware that what I did not gather from his statement last week, and have not gathered from his answer today, is whether the Minister has any direct responsibility for the number of zebra crossings allotted to local authorities and for their distribution? If so, what action does he take in the matter?

Mr. Braithwaite: First, my hon. and gallant Friend will have seen from my lengthy statement on Friday last that my right hon. Friend is about to review the working of crossings in all areas by discussions with the local authorities. These matters are arranged by agreement between the Department, the local authority and the divisional road engineers, and, of course, my right hon. Friend possesses overriding powers.

Mr. Snow: May I ask the Minister if, when he undertakes the review, he will pay particular attention to the question of the abolition of pedestrian crossings in the vicinity of schools? May I give him notice that, on 2nd July, I shall raise on the Motion for the Adjournment the question of a private school at Lichfield, where the risks taken by his Ministry appear to most people in Lichfield to be entirely unjustified?

Mr. Braithwaite: I do not want to repeat the lengthy remarks which I made on Friday on school crossings, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he is to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Sir T. Moore: What has all this got to do with my Question? Surely it is only myself who can give notice that I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Lichfield is a different location from that represented by

the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but there may be two separate problems in the two places.

Mr. Edward Davies: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if, when this matter is under discussion, an attempt will be made to light these zebra crossings at night? What protection is there against the danger arising from a motorist not seeing a pedestrian on a crossing at night?

Mr. Braithwaite: I had hoped that I had illuminated that point on Friday.

Sir E. Boyle: asked the Minister of Transport if he will authorise a zebra crossing at the junction of the roads, Trinity Road, Hampton Road and Earls-bury Gardens, Birchfields, Birmingham 6.

Mr. Braithwaite: This junction is one of a number which are under discussion with the Birmingham City Council. It is within 120 yards of a cross-roads controlled by traffic lights, and I doubt whether a zebra crossing there is necessary.

Sir E. Boyle: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this crossing, which was recently the scene of a serious accident, is on the route by which many children in the district go to school; and would he also bear in mind that Trinity Road is the major road leading from Hands-worth to the industrial centre at Witton?

Mr. Braithwaite: As I said, this matter is still under discussion, and I shall be pleased to receive any representations from the hon. Gentleman which he wishes to make, or from any other hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shurmer: Will the Minister expedite the discussions now going on between his Department and the local authority, because a number of zebra crossings have been taken away in Birmingham, many of them outside schools, and parents are very much concerned about the traffic that runs along the roads from which the crossings have been removed?

Mr. Braithwaite: We shall try to come to a decision as soon as possible, but the hon. Member will remember that no zebra crossings have been taken away.

Belisha Beacons (Maintenance)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to continue to maintain Belisha beacons, in view of the introduction of zebra crossings; and at what estimated annual cost.

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, Sir, and as I informed the House on Friday last we propose that they should be lighted. The present annual cost of maintenance is very small, but the cost of maintaining lights in the beacons may be between £300,000 and £350,000 a year.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend say whether the beacons not on zebra crossings will be removed?

Mr. Braithwaite: We anticipate that they will be removed in due course, when all the crossings have been agreed.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend study the Continental practice in this matter where, for the last quarter of a century, every railway level crossing has been illuminated by twinkling lights of the very description which he proposes to have on crossings in this country?

Mr. Poole: Will the hon. Gentleman also contemplate how many cars meet with disaster in America on twinkling light crossings?

London and Home Counties Advisory Committee

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport the number of members of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; their average age; and the age of the chairman.

Mr. Braithwaite: The Minister of Transport appoints four of the 40 members of this Committee. The rest are appointed by a large number of other authorities. I do not know the age of all the members, but the chairman is 46.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this voluntary committee renders very good service, and will he not reward them in future by coming to more prompt decisions on their recommendations?

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, indeed. We value their work.

Postponed Improvement Schemes

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport what approximate sums of money are now locked up in road and bridge improvement schemes, the completion of which has been postponed; and what steps are to be taken to complete these schemes in the near future.

Mr. Braithwaite: About £6 million have been spent—mostly before the war—on grant-aided and trunk road schemes which have been postponed. It would cost more than £20 million to complete these schemes and capital expenditure of this order cannot be put in hand in present economic circumstances.

Mr. Janner: Is not the Minister aware that many of these improvements have been outstanding for a considerable time? Can he say why, when he has funds in hand for this type of purpose, he does not use them to fulfil the requirements of various districts where bridges and roads require repairing?

Mr. Braithwaite: This, again, is a topic on which I was discursive on Friday last.

Mr. Janner: Not sufficiently discursive: that is the trouble.

Hammersmith Bridge

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport what is the average daily traffic across Hammersmith Bridge.

Mr. Braithwaite: According to the most recent traffic census, taken by the Metropolitan Police on 26th July, 1949, approximately 13,000 vehicles, including 2,700 pedal cycles, crossed Hammersmith Bridge between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take in view of the proposed repairs to Hammersmith Bridge to prevent the inconvenience that will follow from closing the bridge.

Mr. Braithwaite: I am afraid that the necessary closing of this bridge for repairs will inevitably cause inconvenience to the public. The London County Council will complete the work with all possible speed, and the police and the London Transport Executive will make known in good time arrangements for the re-routeing of buses and other vehicular traffic.

Mr. Williams: As there are 13,000 vehicles passing over this bridge every 12 hours, and as this is the only bridge between Putney and Hammersmith—a diversion would be something like 4½ miles—would not the Minister consider an alternative to the complete closing of the bridge, such as either half closing the bridge or giving the Royal Engineers some practice in building a Bailey bridge across the river, thus avoiding some of the inconvenience? Am I not right in assuming that the work is expected to take some three months?

Mr. Braithwaite: All that is true, and, in fact, consideration was given to all those points, but my right hon. Friend's predecessor authorised the complete closure of the bridge because the repairs could not be delayed beyond this summer. It is hoped to complete them within two or three months, and pedestrians and cyclists will be able to use the bridge while the work is in progress.

Mr. Williams: Is it not possible to close half the bridge and use the other half, or alternatively, possibly, to throw a Bailey Bridge across?

Mr. Braithwaite: These points were considered, but it was felt that to do the whole job at once while the hours of daylight are longest—in July, August and September—was the best solution.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Rail Season Tickets

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Transport what directions he has issued to the Railway Executive concerning the purchase of six-monthly season tickets after 30th April.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): None, Sir. I understand that during the present "standstill" period three-monthly season tickets will be charged at the three-monthly rate or at one quarter of the annual rate, whichever is the less, in the case of those persons who, prior to 1st May, held season tickets for a period exceeding three months. Suitable adjustments will be made where such season tickets have already been issued on any different basis of charge.

Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say

whether he has looked into a particular case which I submitted to him, and whether he has considered the apparently unnecessary inconvenience to which a constituent of mine was subjected?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have looked very carefully at the letter addressed to me by the hon. Gentleman. I think it would be very unreasonable to have expected the British Transport Commission, during the standstill period, to issue season tickets for a very long period. I think they were plainly entitled to do what they did do and my answer, I think, would meet any case of general hardship.

Direction Indicators (Flashing Light)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the recent fine imposed upon a motorist using a flashing turning indicator signal; how far his Department has considered the value of this type of indicator; and when he expects to reach a conclusion.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a recent case in which a motorist was fined for using a traffic indicator comprising a flashing side lamp; and whether, in view of the fact that such traffic indicators have many advantages over the mechanical type, which frequently jam unknown to the driver, he will consider amending the existing regulations so as to permit the use of the more modern type.

Mr. Braithwaite: I have seen reports of this case, but I cannot accept the implications of the last part of Question No. 13. On present evidence I see no sufficient grounds for the suggestion that direction indicators of the flashing light type are to be preferred to the semaphore type.

Mr. Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend say whether his Ministry have given consideration to this question from a scientific point of view, and whether they have reached the definite conclusion that the authorising of this form of indication would not be in the public interest?

Mr. Braithwaite: Very thorough investigation has been made, and there are a large number of technical objections with which I shall not detain the


House. But if my hon. Friend cares to see me afterwards I can tell him what are those objections.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Has my hon. Friend seen a newspaper report today to the effect that a certain police force is using flashing light signals, and are these illegal also?

Mr. Braithwaite: I have not yet had time to study the newspapers today.

Road Haulage (Outstanding Claims)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport the sum of money owing, at 1st May, 1952, to former operators in the road haulage industry in respect of vehicles nationalised under the 1947 Act; and when this money will be paid.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is estimated that some £16,500,000 is still owing to former operators of road haulage undertakings acquired by the British Transport Commission compulsorily or by agreement. In a number of cases where provisional ascertainments of compensation have recently been completed, payment will be made in the near future. The major part of the total outstanding relates to cases where final agreement cannot be reached until further information is supplied by the transferors or where the approval of the Transport Arbitration Tribunal has yet to be obtained.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a large number of the claimants are people who will wish to repurchase the operable units of transport, and that unless he provides them with the necessary funds to repurchase these operable units they will be financially embarrassed? Will he finalise the matter at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the transfer of money is proceeding quite smoothly. Sixty-one million pounds have already been paid out. A number of legal points exist now which complicate any speedy solution, but I will press on as fast as I can.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the possibility of road hauliers purchasing back their businesses, in accordance with Government policy, would it not be advisable for payment to be suspended?

Mr. Poole: Let us have a standstill now.

Canal Banks, Keighley

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will ensure that a thorough investigation is made into the condition of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal banks in the Borough of Keighley in order to prevent a repetition of the breach and subsequent flooding which occurred in the borough on 17th May.

Mr. Braithwaite: I am informed by the British Transport Commission that a thorough investigation has been made into the condition of this stretch of canal and that remedial measures have been carried out which should prevent any further breach.

Mr. Hobson: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are leakages in the canal now in spite of the investigation which has taken place and that if a breach occurs there could be considerable risk of damage to life and property?

Mr. Braithwaite: I understand that a special watch is being kept and that some men are still on duty there. I have no doubt that the comments of the hon. Gentleman will be studied by the Transport Commission, whose responsibility it is.

Passenger Fare Increases

Mr. Nally: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a full statement as to the circumstances under which, between the hours of 4.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Monday, 16th June, acting information officers of his Department informed Press representatives that elucidation of the new transport fares was a matter for the British Transport Commission; and why, during the same period, acting information officers of the Transport Commission referred all such representatives to his Department.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: During these hours, a large number of general Press inquiries were dealt with by my Department; and the British Transport Commission also referred to us questions of general policy. When asked for specific examples of the affect of the modifications of the Charges Scheme, my Department advised an approach to the British Transport Commission. I am told that many such requests were fully met by the London Transport Executive on their behalf.

Mr. Nally: While appreciating the courtesy and thoroughness of that reply, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to tell us, in view of the fact that at that time, that is, Monday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—who is charged with the coordination of public information and who was, presumably, equally in charge of this matter—whether any consultations took place between the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman to avoid the quite anomalous and infuriating state of affairs which did take place during the hours mentioned in my Question?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a matter of domestic policy between the Minister and my right hon. Friend, and we are fully in touch with each other. The working out of the things involved—in the case of London the consideration of a million separate fares and rates—and the full effect will be best known by people when they find an improvement in the situation later in the year.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Minister explain why it is that, while the Government, a short time ago, were boasting about the concessions that they would wring from the transport monopoly, they now seem most anxious to disclaim any responsibility for the changes?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I made it plain from the start that we conceived it to be our duty to iron out those disproportionate increases in the original statement of our intentions. That we have wholly discharged.

Mr. Callaghan: Was not this hide-and-seek business deliberate, to avoid disclosing to the public how little it all amounted to?

Sir H. Williams: In what part of London are either Cardiff or Bilston situated?

Mr. Callaghan: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we in Cardiff are concerned because there will be a substantial increase in fares in September?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I might remind the hon. Gentleman that, if the matter bad been left to the late Administration, there would have been no alleviation of any difficulties.

Mr. Nally: The Minister, not unreasonably, has pointed out that the question of giving a detailed explanation of how the new scales would operate was, to some extent, the responsibility of the Commission, but would it be right to assume that none of the examples had been properly prepared by his Department before he was to make this statement?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not for my Department to prepare examples. The Department was in consultation with the Commission, and we laid down certain lines of policy, but the process of working out what the effect would be in individual cases was a matter for the Commission. A large number of queries have been answered, and a greater number still will be answered for the people in the London area by the improved situation later in the year.

Mr. Nally: asked the Minister of Transport why, contrary to normal procedure, no copies of the new transport fares made on Monday, 16th June, were made available to the majority of Press Gallery representatives within a reasonable time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The usual arrangements were made to give the Press Gallery representatives copies of my statement on fares, but I regret that on this occasion there was a delay of half an hour or so, and I have taken steps to prevent a recurrence.

Mr. Nally: I am grateful for the Minister's perfectly frank statement, but is he suggesting that it is only coincidence that, on this important and controversial matter, not only does everything seem to have been delayed, but everything seems to have been thoroughly mixed up, even with a co-ordinator?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has an unduly suspicious mind. If I might briefly explain to the House, I would say that I added a single statement to the answer. That statement was: "I am afraid that this is rather a complicated statement." The effect of that alteration upon a very proper and punctilious gentleman was that it might be regarded as a new statement, so steps were taken to see whether it ought to be retyped.

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Transport why the reductions in London Transport fares cannot be introduced at an earlier date than 31st August.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Thirty-first August is the earliest date by which it will be possible for the available qualified staff to complete the examination and adjustment of the fares and rates, numbering over one million, and for the very considerable amount of reprinting involved.

Captain Ryder: While appreciating the magnitude of this task, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is imperative that all these alterations should be produced on the same date? Is it not possible for some of the more urgent cases to be dealt with first?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that that would still further complicate the situation.

Mr. Poole: Seeing that when the fares were last increased the staff of London Transport were given a wage increase to compensate them for the trouble of learning the new fares, will the Minister now give them a further increase in wages so that they may learn the revised fares?

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated extra revenue which the Transport Commission will receive from the March fare increases in the London area after the most recent adjustments come into effect.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the total additional revenue it is estimated the British Transport Commission will receive in a full year as a result of the fare changes in the London area made on 2nd March as adjusted by the changes to be made on 31st August.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The amount is £11¼ million in a full year.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister say, first, why he could not give this figure last week when asked; and, secondly, does he not agree that London is being asked to make an unfairly large contribution to the revenue of the Transport Commission?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I like to be quite certain of my figures before I give them to the House. The suggestion in the

second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is quite untrue, and when he reads what will be a Written answer to Question No. 24, which his hon. Friend was not in the House to ask, I do not think he will agree with the other part of his own supplementary.

Mr. Beswick: When the Minister says that he likes to be certain of his figures, does that mean that he passed the statement last week without being certain of what figures were involved?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will not the Minister reconsider his opinion that London is not bearing a disproportionate share of the burden, in view of the fact that the whole of the rest of the country is being asked to pay only £4,500,000 whereas London is being asked to pay £11 million?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The two territories, London and outside, started rather differently. As the hon. Gentlemen have pressed me for further information on this, I would point out that while, this year, London Passenger Transport receipts by road and rail will meet their necessary working expenses, they will fall short of their proper contribution to the central charges, reserves and the liquidation of past deficiencies by some £6 million.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the Minister agree that a further examination of this matter might reveal that they are being asked to bear an unfairly large proportion of the central charges?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport how much would have been saved by the London travelling public had the fares coming into effect on 31st August been charged from 2nd March last.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the additional revenue it is estimated the British Transport Commission will receive as a result of the increases made on 2nd March for the period 2nd March to 30th August; and by how much less that amount would have been if the reductions to be made on 31st August had been operative from 2nd March.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 30 and 37 together.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order. May I have my Question answered separately, Sir, because I do not want to be bogged down with a lot of other figures?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should listen to the answer. Then, if he wishes to ask something in supplementation, I will consider it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. and gallant Member will have only one more figure and I hope that his mind is capable of absorbing that as well.
The answer to the Questions is: The British Transport Commission estimate that the additional revenue received in London area during the period from 2nd March to 30th August will be about £6¼ million. If the reductions to be made on 31st August had been operative from 2nd March that figure would have been reduced by about £600,000.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does not that answer mean that, compared with the provinces, London is still being grossly penalised to the extent of a very considerable sum which the right hon. Gentleman has not specified because he would not answer my Question separately? Is there to be no redress for this robbing of the purse of Londoners, which has earned for the right hon. Gentleman the description of the Tory Dick Turpin of 1952 from my constituents and many others in London?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. and gallant Member is not clear as to how untrue the implications in his Question are, I ask him to read the Written answer to Question No. 24, which was not asked because his hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was not here to ask it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would it not simplify matters if the right hon. Gentleman just answered my Question and did not ask me to do rapid sums of arithmetic—additions or subtractions? How much is the figure in reply to Question No. 30?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer I have given is that the figure is £600,000.

Mr. Gibson: Can we take it that the possible saving to over 10 million people

in the greater London area is £600,000 and is not that a miserable saving after all the hullabaloo?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member will realise that we are dealing with only a comparatively short period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Six months."] Six months, not the whole year. It was not the total sum involved but the disproportionate hardship on individuals that was the basis of my predecessor's action.

Sir H. Williams: Will not some of the money about which the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) is grumbling go to members of the Transport and General Workers' Union?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Twice as much as was lost in the mail-bag robbery.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the total additional revenue it is estimated the British Transport Commission will receive in a full year as a result of the fare changes made outside of the London area on 1st January, 1st May and to be made on 1st September.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The final effect of these changes outside London is estimated to yield total additional revenue of £4 million in a full year.

Mr. Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the Transport Commission expects to be able to meet the expense this year and how he is going to make up any possible deficit which may arise? Has any intimation been given to the Minister of a further application for increases in fares?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is quite another matter.

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received urging a general inquiry into the working of London Transport; and what consideration he is giving to this possibility.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Representations to this effect were made by the London Passengers' Association. I have carefully considered them, but I am satisfied that there is no good case to adopt their proposals.

Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that despite these assurances there is a widespread feeling that London is being made to pay more than its share towards the central charges fund, that there is no means by which the ordinary person can find out whether that is so or not and that there is a widespread desire for an inquiry of this kind?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite ready to receive representatives from the London Passengers' Association if my hon. and gallant Friend likes, and explain the situation to them.

Passenger Trains (Fire Prevention)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received all outstanding reports from his inspecting officers in regard to the causes of several fires which have occurred on railway passenger trains during the last two years; what are the principal recommendations made by the inspecting officers; what further inquiries the Minister now proposes to make; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the report made by the inspector upon the train fire which occurred near. Huntingdon on 14th July, 1951; what recommendations he proposes to make to prevent a recurrence of such fires: and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have received Reports on these fires from the inspecting officers, who made a number of recommendations. These have been published and I am sending copies to the hon. Members. Many of the recommendations have been accepted and are being carried out by the Railway Executive; there have, however, been differences of view on certain matters—extra doors in sleeping cars and in open centre corridor coaches, and the training of railway staff in the elements of fire precautions and fire fighting.
My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power and I have had very full discussions with members of the British Transport Commission and with the Chairman of the Railway Executive, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that conclusions which are satisfactory to us in principle have been reached.

Mr. Nabarro: In consideration of the fact that four major fire incidents on passenger trains have occurred in the last three years at Penmanshiel, Beattock, Huntingdon and Fordhouses, respectively, all arising from the use of inflammable varnishes used on the interior of railway coaches, can my right hon. Friend say how many of the 25,000 corridor coaches at present in use have had this inflammable varnish removed and how many are still in service with such inflammable varnish on their interior surfaces?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer is that 23,800 out of the 24,900 corridor coaches on British Railways have been examined; about 15,000 were found to be in order and about 8,000 contained these inflammable surfaces. Of these, 6,800 have been dealt with and about 1,600 are receiving or awaiting attention.

Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Huntingdon train no communication cord could be found inside the second coach, in which the fire started? Can he say whether there was any disagreement between his officers and the Railway Executive on the need for ensuring that there is always a communication cord available, and, if there was no such agreement, how the matter has been reconciled by him?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a matter to which attention is drawn in the report of this accident and one which my inspecting officers are now engaged in taking up with the Railway Executive.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say who was actually responsible for the most dangerous procedure of putting inflammable varnishes on the interiors of trains?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is only comparatively recently that tests have revealed the possible danger of this material. I do not think that anyone can be blamed for its use in the past. The important thing is to see that it is not used in the future.

British Road Services (Goodwill)

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of Transport what is the present estimated capital value of goodwill in the profit-earning British Road Services undertaking; and how he proposes to recover the value of this national asset when selling the vehicles and equipment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The total goodwill of British Road Services at 31st December, 1951, as shown by the Commission's Annual Accounts (statement V-4) was £33 million. As stated in the White Paper, the Government propose that the Commission should be compensated out of a levy on goods vehicles for any loss arising from the sale, including loss on the goodwill appropriate to the property sold.

Mr. Price: Is it not obvious that any competent body of Conservative directors of a business undertaking would never proceed on lines like these as, otherwise, they would be removed from office? Is it not high time that in view of the avalanche of public criticism by all responsible quarters the Minister should drop this crazy scheme of selling valuable public assets at knock down prices to speculators?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Bill which, if he approaches it fairly, will remove a great many of his doubts.

Passenger Vehicles (Outstanding Claims)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport the sum of money paid, in aggregate, to former operating companies in respect of passenger road vehicles and businesses nationalised under the 1947 Act; the sum of money owing to former operating companies at 1st May, 1952; and whether he will now make a statement in regard to denationalisation of such passenger road vehicles as are currently in public ownership.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Under the 1947 Transport Act, the Commission could only compulsorily acquire road passenger undertakings as part of their area road passenger transport schemes. No such acquisitions have taken place and it is proposed to abolish these scheme-making powers in the forthcoming legislation. They have, however, by voluntary agreement, purchased shares in such companies at the cost of about £53 million. About £300,000 of this is still outstanding.
In addition, the shareholdings in a number of road passenger undertakings formerly owned by the Railway Companies were automatically vested in the

Commission in January, 1948. In regard to the last part of the Question, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the Transport Bill.

Oil Pollution, Cornwall

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to stop the pollution of the Cornish bathing beaches by oil and oil refuse.

Mr. Braithwaite: Although all the complaints which the Ministry have received of the pollution of the beaches of Cornwall have been investigated it has not been possible to obtain conclusive evidence of the source of the pollution. As I informed the House on 16th May, the Ministry is conducting a comprehensive review of the problem of oil pollution and we hope shortly to discuss the matter with representatives of the shipping industry with a view to seeing what further practical measures can be taken to deal with the matter.

Mr. Stokes: In addition to considering what I understand is already proposed, the provision of oil separators in ports, will the Minister also make regulations that oil-burning ships coming to this country shall carry tanks into which this refuse can be discharged instead of into the sea?

Mr. Braithwaite: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of this nuisance. Only recently I visited what I believe to be his own residence, Watergate Bay, in Cornwall, or near it, and other hon. Members from that part of the country have made representations about Fowey and similar places. There are wrecks in the vicinity which may be responsible for some of the trouble.

Mr. Stokes: I have no residence in Cornwall, but I am interested in that part of the country. Would the Minister answer the last part of my question, which was whether he will consider introducing regulations to ensure that oil-burning vessels shall carry tanks into which they can pour this refuse instead of discharging it into the sea? There may be a residual value which could be recovered.

Mr. Braithwaite: All these points will be examined.

Colonel Clarke: Does my hon. Friend know that it has been suggested that


tankers, leaving port light, do not like to fill their tanks at once because of the danger of getting sediment into them, that it is suggested that they keep the water circulating in their tanks for some time and that this may cause a certain amount of oil to lie on coastal waters?

Mr. Braithwaite: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for that information.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that distance lends no enchantment in this matter, that the sand on some of the beaches in Cornwall comes from as far away as the Sea of Saragossa and that it is no solution to say that this oil is being discharged into the middle of the sea? It should not be discharged into the sea at all.

Mr. D. Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware of the extreme urgency of this problem, not only in view of its effects upon invisible exports in tourist traffic but also upon the sea bird population and swans as well?

Buses, London (Static Electricity)

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that certain London omnibuses build up considerable electrical power in their bodies and that passengers taking hold of the hand-rail can receive a considerable electric shock; and whether, in the interests of public safety, he will revise his regulations so as to preclude the certificate of fitness remaining in force in respect of such omnibuses, until the necessary modifications have been made.

Mr. Braithwaite: Motor vehicles generally are liable to build up charges of static electricity and a shock may result. London Transport have taken all possible steps to eliminate the possibility of such shocks and complaints from the public have practically ceased. The shocks are not dangerous and my right hon. Friend sees no ground for any action on his part.

Mr. Poole: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the intensity of the shock is dependent to a large extent upon the frequency with which the vehicle has been picking up passengers, and that if the vehicle has not picked up passengers for some time a passenger boarding the bus

receives a very considerable shock from earthing the static charge on the handrail? Is he aware that I received a shock recently, that on that bus there were four other passengers who were complaining, and that I believe that the shock which I received might have had very serious consequences to an elderly woman with a bad heart? I feel that the matter ought to be looked into further.

Mr. Braithwaite: I am sure that the House will regret the hon. Member's unhappy experience, an account of which I will convey to the London Transport Executive.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend assure us that he will not re-introduce a regulation which, at one time, required a motor vehicle to carry a trailing chain?

Bicycles (Safety Devices)

Mr. Baldock: asked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates sufficient supplies of reflectors and white mudguards becoming available for bicycles, to restore regulations requiring their use.

Mr. Braithwaite: I regret that I cannot forecast when it will be possible to impose these requirements which would, I understand, involve at least 12 months' notice to the industry and the diversion of labour and materials from the industry's task of achieving maximum exports.

Mr. Baldock: With a view to reducing road accidents at night, will the Minister see whether comparatively small supplies—of plastic and glass, mainly, neither of which, I think, are in short supply—could be made available for this purpose?

Mr. Braithwaite: There are normally 6 million cyclists on the roads, rising to 10 million in the summer months, so it is a tall order.

Mr. Renton: Can my hon. Friend say what is to prevent cyclists from dabbing a little white paint on their rear mudguards? Is he aware that by that very small effort a very great increase in road safety could be achieved?

Mr. Braithwaite: I am very glad to say that large numbers of cyclists do that.

Road Haulage Undertakings (Sale Proceeds)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport to whom the proceeds of the sale of the road haulage undertakings will be credited.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The property belongs to the British Transport Commission, to whom the proceeds of the sale will therefore accrue.

Mr. Beswick: In the light of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement that has appeared in the Press that the Transport Commission will be able to bid for road haulage vehicles to be put up for sale? Will he give an undertaking that there will be no restriction placed on the number or type of vehicles for which they can bid?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must ask the hon. Member to await the forthcoming debate.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 44 minutes we have reached the forty-first of Questions to his Department, a number of which have not been asked, and will he suggest to the people who draft his replies that if they avoided expressions like "detailed examination," "careful consideration" and "exploring every avenue," and cut out verbosity and pomposity, we should make better progress?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is an exceedingly ungenerous comment. If these important issues are put too briefly they are difficult for most hon. Members to understand. Perhaps today I have gone to the other extreme, although, I think, to general satisfaction.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members should bear in mind that they have some responsibility for the protraction of our proceedings.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Textile Contracts, Lancashire

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Supply (1) why certain areas in Lancashire are specially zoned for his Department's contracts;
(2) what are the areas in Lancashire that are specially zoned for the placing of his Department's contracts.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): In order to save time, with the hon. Member's permission, I will answer these Questions together.
The only areas which are permanently accorded preferential treatment in the allocation of Government orders are the scheduled Development Areas. In the placing of orders under the special scheme for accelerating textile contracts special consideration is given to localities which are being most severely hit by the current recession in the textile industry.

Mr. Hale: Also to save time, I will ask one supplementary to the answers to both Questions. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave disquiet in Oldham and that the situation has changed so greatly that manufacturers are being told that they will have no chance of being given a contract because special attention is being given to other areas? Oldham itself is very much a distressed area.

Mr. Sandys: As I explained in my answer, areas which are severely affected by the recession in the textile industry are getting special treatment. I would not like to say, in answer to a supplementary question, which areas are most severely affected.

Factory, East Kilbride

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Minister of Supply (1) what is the present target date for completion of the Rolls Royce factory at East Kilbride; and what postponement of the target date there has been;
(2) how many building labourers and tradesmen are being employed on the Rolls Royce works at East Kilbride; and how many were found necessary before it was decided to adapt this factory for night-shift work.

Mr. Sandys: The original completion date, February, 1953, has not been changed. The factory as planned is equally suitable for single or double-shift working and no alterations have been made on this account. Two hundred and seventeen skilled and 230 unskilled building operatives are at present employed on the site.

Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chairman and the Manager of East Kilbride Development


Corporation have successively told me that the target dates were the present month and also the month of September? Is he further aware that the Corporation has been pressed to subordinate every other activity in the new town to the task of completing this factory by September? Will he say whether that is true or not?

Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend has entirely different information from mine. I will certainly look into the matter.

Jet Airliners (Development)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Supply which organisations other than the British Overseas Airways Corporation and his Department were responsible for Britain leading the world in jet airliners.

Mr. Sandys: I assume that the hon. Member has not overlooked the British aircraft industry, to whom the lion's share of the credit is, of course, due.

Pig Iron Supplies

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware that a firm, about which he has been informed, has written to every supplier of hematite pig iron in the country and is still unable to secure an adequate supply; and what action he will take to enable this firm to maintain full production.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. The licence issued to this firm authorises them to acquire pig iron of all qualities, but does not guarantee that supplies of any particular grade will be available. Action is being taken to help the firm, but in view of the shortage of pig iron, I cannot promise that their requirements will be met in full.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Minister for the action that has been taken, so I am informed this morning, as a result of which the production of this firm is improving, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why this action could not have been taken three months ago when I first wrote to him about this question? Was the Minister not aware of this situation until this firm wrote to every supplier in the country and forwarded letters to him?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes to suggest that action was first taken this morning, or

whether he merely heard of it this morning. Action began as far back as April.

Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing materialised, as far as this firm is concerned, until last week? Is he further aware that the situation of this firm, which has been very bad for the past three months, has only improved last week, since the Question was put down?

Mr. Sandys: A great deal of trouble has been taken to help this firm, but there are special circumstances which made it difficult, which I will explain to the hon. Member in greater detail some time if he wishes.

Road Works, Halstead Fort

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Supply the cost of the road works on the road from Halstead Fort terminating at the "Polhill Arms": and what useful purpose they serve.

Mr. Sandys: This road links the Ministry of Supply Establishments with the main London-Sevenoaks road. Repairs and improvements, costing about £22,000, have become necessary owing to the large increase in traffic. The fact that this road joins the main road at the "Polhill Arms" is without significance.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that there is a deep impression in the district that much too much money, manpower and materials are being devoted to works which are controlled by the Government or by nationalised industry, and that this crossing, which is for Government lorries, is the laughing stock of the district?

Steel Allocation, North-East Coast

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement on the inquiry he has made into the steel allocation to the Northern Region.

Mr. Sandys: I have no knowledge of the inquiry referred to in the Question.

Miss Ward: Has my right hon. Friend made any inquiries into the Press report that there had been a wrong allocation of steel to the North-East coast? Is he aware that when I rang up his Department I was told that an inquiry would be made, and has that information not


yet reached my right hon. Friend? If I put down a Question next week will he be able to deny or confirm the Press report which has caused grave anxiety on the North-East coast?

Mr. Sandys: I would not be in a position either to confirm or deny this statement for the simple reason that steel is allocated by industries and not by regions. I therefore think that the statement must be based on a misunderstanding of the position.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Admiralty is carrying out an investigation into the statement, and will he kindly ring up his right hon. Friend the First Lord and find out from him the true facts and the result of this inquiry?

Mr. Sandys: I see that the hon. Lady has a Question down to the First Lord of the Admiralty later this week. Perhaps she will await his reply.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that the steel allocation scheme is not working satisfactorily? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement by leading Midland manufacturers that in the actual allocation of steel there is a great deal of favouritism, and that the excellent scheme referred to by his own Ministry is not being put into practice?

Mr. Sandys: I am not aware of any favouritism whatsoever. On the whole, the scheme is working far more smoothly than I expected. I warned the House some months ago that for some time there would continue to be difficulties in obtaining particular types of steel which might be required for particular industries.

Pliers (U.K. Orders)

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware of the concern of Birmingham hand tool manufacturers that German manufacturers have been asked to tender for supplies of pliers, when tenders from Birmingham have been outstanding since December, 1951; and what action he is taking to protect Birmingham manufacturers against renewed German competition.

Mr. Sandys: It is true that inquiries for pliers were made on the Continent during the second half of last year, but no orders for them have been, or will be

placed by the Ministry of Supply abroad. All our requirements are being obtained from manufacturers in this country.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that this answer will give great satisfaction to hand tool manufacturers? There is in this country plenty of manufacturing capacity, especially since the closing of the Australian and other markets. Some of the hand tool manufacturers have already stood off some of their staff, and I am pleased to know that this country will not have to face German competition as we did in pre-war days.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE CLAIMS (MEDICAL EVIDENCE)

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of National Insurance in how many cases in the five months ending May, 1952, have insurance officers refused to accept the medical evidence of incapacity supplied in support of a claim.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): I regret that there are no statistics of such cases.

Mr. Poole: What further evidence would the right hon. Gentleman's Department require in support of a claim apart from evidence of the medical practioner who examines the patient, and on what authority do his officers refuse a claim when such evidence is forthcoming?

Mr. Peake: As the hon. Gentleman knows, claims for benefit are accepted or rejected by the National Insurance Officer, who is one of the independent statutory authorities. In my opinion, it would be quite wrong to tie down the Insurance officer and compel him in every case to accept a medical certificate without question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1950–51

Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army and Air grants for the year ended 31st March, 1951, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, upon Thursday.

Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army and Air Departments [presented 29th January] referred to the Committee. —[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.32 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I suggest that there could hardly be a shorter or more simple Bill to lay before this House. As I shall explain in a minute, it is due to a rather interesting sequence of historical events that a Bill dealing with so simple a matter should have to be laid before the House at all. All that the Bill seeks to do is to empower the Postmaster-General to increase the poundage on certain postal orders from 2d. to 3d. This is one of the postal tariff changes which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, and it has to be legalised in this way.
I do not imagine that I need tell the House why this increase is required. It is to meet the startling increase in costs which the Post Office has had to meet during the past two years. The total additional expenditure is approximately £50 million, or an increase of 25 per cent. in the short space of two years. Of this £50 million, about £33 million is due to higher charges for salaries, wages and pension liabilities. If there had been no increase in tariff charges generally, of which this particular charge is one, there would have been during the current year an estimated deficit on the Post Office account of approximately £2 million.
As it is, even with these increased charges the estimated surplus is only £8 million, which is the lowest surplus for 25 years, except for 1951–52 and for the first year of the war. In point of fact, we are not by any manner of means certain that we can reach this surplus of £8 million, because since the Estimates were prepared increased charges have meant that we shall be very lucky indeed if this figure is obtained. I want to stress this point because I think that there is a good deal of misunderstanding today about Post Office finance. I noticed that in the "Evening Standard" last Thursday, when they were commenting on the increased charges which the Post Office

have been compelled to make, there appeared these words:
These increases are made at a time when the Post Office is returning an average profit of £16 million a year.
I have not the faintest idea where the "Evening Standard" got those figures, but I only wish they were even approximately true.
The estimated surplus for the year ending 31st March of this year is likely to be of the order of £4 million and, as I have already said, there has been such a startling increase in costs, largely through higher wages, that, far from there being a surplus of £16 million, as the newspaper suggests, there would have been an actual deficit of £2 million. I should perhaps add that these figures take into account the fact that the Post Office has received a credit in its commercial accounts for all the services—telephone, telegraph and postal—which the Post Office provides for Government Departments. As I think my predecessor will appreciate, this question of the commercial accounts is one of the most difficult things to put across to the public and the Press.
Not only are these increased poundage charges necessary to play a part in Post Office revenue generally; they are necessary to meet a deficit on the postal order service itself and also on the other branch of the remittance service, that of money orders. It is estimated that during 1952–53 the postal order service would, at current rates, show a deficit of approximately £130,000, as compared with a surplus of £100,000 for last year, nearly £500,000 for the previous year and about £500,000 for 1935–36. The increased poundage which I am proposing to the House today is estimated to produce, over a full year, additional revenue of £1,350,000. If it had been possible to introduce it in time for it to have come into effect on 1st July of this year, we reckon that it would have produced another £1 million for the current year.
The other branch of the remittance service—money orders—is now running at an estimated loss of £500,000 a year, and the inland rates for the money order poundage were increased, as the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) knows—because he did it—as recently as 1st July, 1951. It was then estimated that the increases would provide an additional £200,000, but subsequent


wage awards have largely cancelled that out.
If, therefore, we take the two remittance services together, the increased poundage on the postal orders should produce a net profit of £700,000 in a full year, but only if costs do not rise again. Needless to say, I very much regret that this increased poundage is necessary, and I hope the House will agree with me that it is inevitable, not only because of the financial position of the Post Office generally but also because of the deficit on the remittance services in particular.
As I said just now, there is an interesting historical reason why a separate Bill is required to authorise the increase by 1d. in the poundage on certain postal orders. It takes us back over a century and a half in Post Office history and the House may perhaps like to hear it.
The earliest money remittance service was provided by money orders in 1792 because of the frequent losses in sending money by post. Apparently, at that time, the legal advisers to the Post Office decided that it was ultra vires for the Post Office to start its own money order service, so the then Postmaster-General allowed six Post Office officials to do the job in their personal capacities. They were known as "clerks of the road." These clerks of the road do not appear to have been very successful in their venture, and another private partnership took over; but in 1838, as a result of an official inquiry, the Government of the day decided to nationalise it—and it was in that way the money order service was taken over by the Post Office.
In 1856 this service was extended to overseas remittances inwards, for the rather interesting reason that it enabled the men who were fighting in the Crimean War to send money home to their wives. Things went on like that until about 1871, when it was discovered that this service was becoming more and more unprofitable, very largely because of the cost of sending money orders of low value. It was from this fact that the postal order service, as we know it today, grew up.
The other interesting thing about the small Bill that was then introduced which has a distinct relevance to what we are doing today, is that when it was introduced it met with a good deal of hostility both in the House and in financial circles. The banks did not like it

because they thought the Government intended to use it as a preliminary to bringing in paper currency, and the House did not like it for a reason for which sometimes we do not like bills today—that is was so badly drafted that no one could understand it. Eventually, in 1880, the Bill was passed.
It was in 1883 that the maximum value of postal orders was fixed, and the maximum poundage was also fixed at 2d. Perhaps nothing shows better than this Bill the way in which legislation of recent years has become complicated. Nothing shows it better than the fact that in 1880, when that Bill was passed, the House insisted on having direct and detailed control over so small a thing as raising the poundage on postal orders. Today it is one of those matters which we should leave to delegated legislation, and the increase would probably go through almost unchallenged. The reason I have to introduce this Bill today is because of this historical background.
Before I sit down, there is one other matter dealing with postal orders which I think is relevant to the future administration of postal orders and which may be of some interest to the House. I have to tell the House of a new machine which was invented some time ago and which I believe is the first of its kind in the world. It is a machine for printing for each customer the amount of the postal order which he wants and all the other details which go with it, like the date, the poundage and so on.
A Post Office clerk takes a blank postal order and, when the customer asks for a certain value to be put on it, he puts it through the machine and out comes the postal order without the customer having to put on it stamps to make up an odd amount. It is saving quite a bit of time and I think it will be a great advantage. We hope it will lead to greater efficiency. In other words, if someone comes to a Post Office counter and asks for a postal order for 19s. 3d., he can have it straight away.
The first of these machines—and the Post Office has six—was installed at Romford Head Post Office in October of last year. It has gone through a few teething troubles, but I am now satisfied that it will be quite satisfactory. Four other machines are being installed—one in London, one in Birmingham, the third


in the Frederick Street Branch Office of Edinburgh, and the last in Newport, Mon.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is there one in Liverpool?

Mr. Gammans: Not all of the people who put money on football pools come from Liverpool. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen who represent those constituencies might like to see these machines at work, and if so, I shall be delighted to make all the necessary arrangements.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Is it British?

Mr. Gammans: Yes. I must apologise to the House for digressing in this way, but I thought it might be of interest to them not only to know the historical background of the Bill, but also to learn of the development of the postal order service generally.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House considers it undesirable to proceed with any Measure for increasing Post Office charges until Parliament has had an opportunity of examining the organisation of the Post Office financial system with a view to providing for accounting on a commercial basis; and, in particular, declines to proceed with a Bill which imposes a charge which cannot be justified on commercial grounds and which places an unfair burden on the poorer sections of the community.
The Assistant Postmaster-General spent quite a deal of time in disgression but not quite enough time upon his Bill. What he has sought to do is to hide the fact that on commercial grounds he has no justification at all for these proposals. He referred to all sorts of accounts and to the commercial accounts generally, but he slipped over very quietly the exact calculations which are related to the proposals in the Bill.
Before coming to the Amendment, I should like to say a few words, too. First, of all, it is against a very sombre background that we have to discuss this Bill. The Post Office is declining in popularity and is becoming far more expensive than ever it has been; and, in the words of the leading article of the "Evening

Standard" to which the hon. Gentleman referred:
It will take more than pretty pictures to reconcile the public to the beating which they are receiving at the hands of the Post Office. As from July 1, the rental of a business telephone in London goes up from £8 3s. 4d. to £11 a year, and of a private telephone from £5 19s. 7d. to £8. At the same time, the free call allowance for residential subscribers"——

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Are we entitled to discuss telephone charges on this Bill, or are we to discuss poundage on postal orders? I should like to discuss both.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Further to the point of order. The Assistant Postmaster-General, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, referred to the commercial surplus, and he sought to justify what he was doing in the Bill in relation to the overall accounts of the Post Office. All I am doing is to refer to some of the ingredients of the overall accounts.

Mr. Barnett Janner: Further to the point of order. It appears to me that the matter that was being raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) is particularly relevant to this issue. Obviously, if there is to be an increase in the charge for postal orders, the whole set-up of the postal services is affected from the financial aspect.

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the point of order, a certain amount of analysis is in order, I think, because no doubt one of the reasons for this increase in poundage is either to make up a deficit or to get a larger surplus. The House will realise, however, that the main purpose of the Bill is to deal with postal orders and, while the other matters may be referred to by way of general argument, they should not be gone into too deeply.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as I am bound to do. I was only making passing reference to some of the points, in exactly the same way as did the Assistant Postmaster-General. Perhaps I may continue the quotation:
At the same time, the free call allowance for residential subscribers will be reduced from 200 to 100 a year. The cost of registered letters and air-mail rose last month. Increases in postal order poundage are still to come.
They come today.
That is the background, and it is indeed a very sombre background, especially when one remembers what the Assistant Postmaster-General said in a previous debate when he spoke of the devastating effect upon the Post Office of the amount of capital expenditure which is now being allowed.
This bill is put forward in the names of the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. They were both great warriors when they were in opposition, but now, apparently, they are allowing the Post Office to be used in a way which they would have been the first to condemn had they been on this side of the House. The Financial Secretary sought to do the Post Office great harm when he was in opposition. I must say that he is giving it some mortal blows now that he is in the Government.
This action, I am afraid, compares with the old Biblical story of classic deceit, which is to be found in the Old Testament. One can adapt the words a little. "The voice is the voice of the Post Office, but the hand is the hand of the Treasury." In this matter the Assistant Postmaster-General is doing something which he knows in his own mind cannot be justified on the basis of Post Office considerations. What he is doing is to carry out the dictates of the Treasury.
He has not told us—and this, I think, is ominous—what are his proposals; he has merely told us about the permissive powers in this Bill. Why did not he tell us what he was going to do with those powers? This is most amazing. The present poundage rates are as follows: up to 1s., 1d.; from 1s. 6d. to 5s., 1½d.; from 5s. to 21s., 2d. What are they to be under this Bill?

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: What about the £2 one?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am coming to that. What are they going to be under this Bill? There is a £2 postal order. What is the authority for charging 4d. for a £2 postal order? These are the things that we ought to know from the Assistant Postmaster-General when he is bringing forward a Bill of this kind. He is selling us a pig in a poke. What is to be the future poundage? It is rather alarming that the Bill is put forward asking for permissive powers to raise the maximum

charge to 3d., when already 4d. is being charged for a £2 postal order—I do not know under what authority—and on other postal orders below that the poundage is to be raised to 3d. Do I understand that up to 1s. the poundage of 1d. is to go to 1½d.? Is that right?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: No answer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the poundage from 1s. 6d. to 5s. to go up to 2d.? Is that right?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: No answer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is that for 5s. to 21s. to go up to 3d.?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Again no answer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We ought to know. Why do the Government want this Bill? What is to be the exact effect upon the individual postal orders? Is it right that the 4d. poundage on a £2 postal order—for which I can find no stautory authority—is to go up to 6d.? I have put these pointed questions to the hon. Gentleman. I think we cannot carry on this debate unless we have the answers to them. I invite him to tell us now.

Mr. Gammans: It is all set out and available, and the poundage is as follows: on postal orders from 6d. to 1s., it goes from 1d. to 1½d.; from 1½d. to 2d. on 1s. 6d. up to 5s.; to 3d. from 6s. up to 21s.; from 40s. it goes up from 4d. to 6d.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think he might have told us before. It was an oversight, no doubt, but I think he might have told us when moving the Second Reading. I hope that, when making his final reply to the debate, he will tell us what is the statutory authority in the case of the £2 postal order, and also give us some indication whether or not this Bill will interfere with his intention to raise the poundage to 6d. on an order over £2.
Now I come to the reasons for doing it. The hon. Gentleman was asked on 19th March by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Rev. L1. Williams) what was the financial outcome of the postal order service for the year 1951 to 1952 and the additional income to be expected from the proposed increases. The hon. Gentleman answered then as


he answered in moving the Second Reading:
The estimated surplus on the postal order service for 1951–52 is £100,000, but for 1952–53 there would have been an estimated deficit of £130,000. The estimated additional revenue for 1952–53 from the proposed increases in charges from 1st July is £1,050,000."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 208.]
In a full year, as the hon. Gentleman has said, he will get, to meet this comparatively small deficit, not the amount of the deficit, but £1,350,000; and this is to meet an estimated loss of £130,000. This really can hardly be justified on Post Office grounds.

Mr. Janner: We shall have to have price control, I think.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman made no reference to the fact that what he was really doing was helping the Chancellor. It was left to the Chancellor to tell us in his Budget statement that the additional revenue for the Post Office was to assist him. This will provide 10 times the normal profit. It will provide a 1,000 per cent. increase in the rate of profit. Surely there can be no justification at all for the increases proposed in this case.
Can it be doubted that this is not done for the purpose of the commercial accounts of the Post Office? If one were concerned with the commercial accounts of the Post Office, one would raise the charge to the cost of the particular services and try to apply an equitable charge that would meet the cost of a particular service, and not try to milk one service at the expense of another. I agree that there are different reasons for the special case of telegraphs, but, apart from that, each one of these services ought, by and large, to meet the cost of running it. In this case, however, it is proposed to increase the rate of normal profit by 1,000 per cent., at a time when the country is told to do all it can to freeze wages and have restraint on profits.
I have tried to find out from the hon. Gentleman what is the element of taxation in this proposal—because there is an element of taxation, I am sure he will agree. In case he has forgotten, I will remined him of the Chancellor's Budget speech, when the right hon. Gentleman said:

I now turn to certain minor sources of revenue for this year.
Minor sources.
My noble Friend the Postmaster-General, in order to balance his accounts and"—
here is the significant thing—
also to assist me, has found it necessary to increase certain Post Office charges."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1296.]
It is assistance to the Treasury that is reflected in this Bill. Apparently the Chancellor is regarding the Post Office as a minor source of revenue. As I say, I have tried to find out what is the amount of taxation contained in this proposal. I put a Question to the hon. Gentleman on 19th March. I asked:
How much of the additional revenue from the proposed increased charges is required for purely Post Office purposes; and how much for the needs of the Exchequer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 206.]
I had a reply that completely evaded the point of the Question. There can be no doubt that the element of taxation in this proposal is at the rate of £1 million in a full year, and I say it is to be condemned on that basis.
Upon what sections of the community is this additional taxation to be imposed? I defy the hon. Gentleman to deny that this increase in charges was dictated, not by the Post Office, but by the Treasury. That is why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has his name on the back of the Bill. Who will bear this taxation? The old-age pensioners, the unfortunately growing army of unemployed, the widows and the people who put a shilling or two on the pools. If there is to be taxation on the pools, let it be direct taxation.

Mr. Nabarro: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House the benefit of his experience and tell us what percentage of postal orders of less than 5s. value are devoted to football pools; and to what extent, therefore, the taxation to which he is referring will be a direct tax on football pools?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not think that has any connection with the argument I am putting forward. If there is to be taxation on football pools, let us do it as taxation on football pools. Do not tax the poor people by this special levy through the poundage on postal orders. The son and daughter who want to send a few shillings home to their father or


mother, or the mother or father who wants to send a few shillings to the girl or boy away in the training college, are the people who will have to bear this additional taxation. Those who can afford to run banking accounts will still pay only 2d. They can transfer hundreds of thousands of pounds for 2d.— the same amount as a poor person will have to pay to transfer 1s. 6d. I say that this is class taxation with a vengeance. This is legislation against the poor, getting £1 million out of poor people under the very thin excuse of its being required for Post Office costs.
That is our case against the merits of this proposal. Now let me turn to the Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. In the Amendment we set out two reasons: first, legislation against a section of the community, and secondly, that we want Post Office charges and the financial running of the Post Office to be subject to an impartial inquiry like the Bridgeman inquiry. I have on a number of occasions sought to press the hon. Gentleman about this, and after his term at the Post Office I was not surprised to find that he rather agreed with the view that I took.
It is extremely difficult to explain to the public, and even to this House, the financial structure of the Post Office, where there can be a commercial surplus and a cash loss, and £24 million worth of services in the commercial accounts for which there is no cash, which is not carried on the books of the Departments who get those services. That was the point the "Evening Standard" was making, and whilst their figures were wrong—and one can understand them being wrong—the argument they were putting forward was right, and was used on more than one occasion by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in opposition. Anyone who has had anything to do with the Post Office has come to the conclusion that it ought to be run on the basis of charging for the services it renders, and on no other basis.
I put these things to the hon. Gentleman, and in the debate on 31st March he went out of his way to explain them, saying:
The House ought to know what all that adds up to. In 1950–51 the Post Office took a credit from other Government Departments

for no fewer than £24 million, of which £13 million was for telephone services. Up to 1943, the telephone and telegraph service was settled by inter-Departmental payments, but the amounts had to appear in the Estimates of the Department concerned. From the Post Office point of view"—
this is the Assistant Postmaster-General speaking—
we would like to revert to that system. In my opinion, if the head of each Government Department had to account in his Estimates for the amount that was spent on telephones I am not sure whether the bill would come to £13 million a year, as it does now.
That was the general point of view of the Assistant Postmaster-General. Later in the debate, referring to what I had said, he said:
He considers that we might have another Bridgeman Committee. I think there is something in that. I do not want to go any further and suggest that this is going to happen, but I agree that a great organisation such as the Post Office should, from time to time, have the sort of close and expert examination that it had before.
He went on to say finally:
It would be a good thing from the point of view of the Post Office accounts, and might not be a bad thing from the point of view of the Departments concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 1191, 1258.]
That is the attitude of the Assistant Postmaster-General. Had he been on this side of the House, he would have been roaring at us with great exuberance and chivying us at every turn and corner. Now that he is the meek messenger of the Treasury he will do anything to the Post Office that the Treasury request him to do. What a change of roles. I was going to say "What a fall was there," but perhaps I had better not rub it in, because he is merely taking it for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That is what it comes to. He has got to take the bumping while someone else has been responsible for the deed. We can only bump by bumping him, as I am sure he appreciates that.
It is our view that the time has come when, before we grant any more increases, especially like this inequitable and unjust increase, we should get a complete examination of the system of Post Office accounting and the relationship of the Post Office to the Treasury. There is no more reason to get £1 million in tax on postal orders than there is to get £1 million in tax on coal, railways or civil aviation, and I am sure that in his heart


of hearts the hon. Gentleman agrees with us.
That is doing infinite harm to the Post Office. What is the use of Post Office officials straining every nerve to increase the revenue of the Post Office when they find every year at Budget time that the Treasury play havoc with their accounts? The business element has been taken completely out of the Post Office, and I am sure there can be no more frustrated bunch of officials today than the officials in charge of the Post Office.
I say to the hon. Gentleman, with very great respect, that if he allows this to go on harm will be done to the Post Office which it will take generations to overcome. In all the time I have been in the House I have never known the Post Office to have so weak a political defence. I suppose it is easy to sacrifice the Post Office whilst the Postmaster-General is in another place. That is our trouble. The Postmaster-General is in another place and we cannot attack him. He can smilingly look upon his Assistant Postmaster-General having a beating which the Postmaster-General ought to get for betraying him.
That is our case, and it is in those circumstances that I have moved the Amendment. At the end of the debate we propose to divide the House, for two reasons: first, because the Post Office is not getting that degree of independence which would be good for it to make a really businesslike and efficient undertaking; and secondly, because this Bill imposes taxation upon the poorest section of the community while at the same time retaining the 2d. poundage for those who can run banking accounts.

4.11 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), who was the former Postmaster-General, has, I think, shown considerable ingenuity in using this what I might call little Bill as a basis for a good, tub-thumping political speech. I think that I heard hon. Members opposite say that it was a good speech of its type; I think it was. I rather wish to treat the matter somewhat differently.
Before I do so, I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when all is said and done, the sombre background

to which he referred and taking the words of the amendment, the "burden on the poorest sections of the community" go back some considerable time, because it was when he was Postmaster-General that the public telephone call was raised from 2d. to 3d. and various other increases were made, all of which, I suggest, are a sombre background and certainly affect the poorest sections of the community more than those people who can afford to have their own telephones.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should remember that my predecessor had already raised the rate for private telephones.

Sir R. Grimston: That does not alter the fact that the right hon. Gentleman raised the rate for public telephones, which certainly falls very hard on the poorest sections of the community who may have to use them in an emergency. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make a political thing out of this, he is just as vulnerable as my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General.
I noticed the other day—I was not able to be present at the debate myself—that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), who was formerly Assistant Postmaster-General, expressed the view, if I may quote in parenthesis, that the Post Office was not a sort of political battledore and shuttlecock, and that, in the past, we had treated the Post Office more or less as a non-political Department. I agree with him in that, and that it is an institution of which we can all be proud. I want, in the remarks I make, to treat it on that basis.
First of all, I think we all regret these increased charges. When one looks at the increased charges and the reasons for them, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is extremely difficult for an ordinary member of the general public to find out what the Post Office accounts mean. In fact, I must confess that I myself, when I look at the financial statement and then look at the commercial accounts, find it extremely difficult to sort the matter out.
On this point of the Post Office being used or not being used as a vehicle of taxation, I again agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the prime object of the Post Office is to render a commercial service to the public, and I think that its charges, by and large, should be


framed with that end in view; but at the same time—and if I am wrong, my hon. Friend will no doubt correct me—I think that the view has been taken in the past that, being a commercial institution, the Post Office should, as other commercial institutions do, make some contribution to the Revenue. It does not pay Income Tax or Profits Tax, but, being a commercial institution, it should make some contribution, and, if my recollection serves me aright, in the days before the war and after the Bridgeman Committee, that was fixed at £10 million a year. Then came the war, and all these things were upset.
This brings me to a particular point which I want to impress on my hon. Friend, and that is the accounting to other Government Departments. There is something of a Gilbertian situation here because, during the time the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in office, we who are now on this side of the House were often pressing him to reintroduce the method, which was abandoned during the war, whereby every Government Department was charged for the services which it rendered to the Post Office and had to show them in its estimates. For many reasons it is agreed that all other Government Departments should do so in their use of the postal service, and it is a step, I think, in clarifying the Post Office accounts. We did almost get the right hon. Gentleman to the stage of introducing this.
I want to ask my hon. Friend what is the present position. When we were in opposition, we pressed this point of view very strongly on the then Government, and I hoped that when we came into office it would not be long before the system was reintroduced, both from the point of view of the benefit which it would have upon the extravagant use by other Government Departments—if it is extravagant—of the Post Office services, and secondly, to simplify the accounts. I think this has a bearing on these charges, because the more we can get back to a proper commercial basis the more likely we are to get efficient working, and I hope that, if my hon. Friend may speak again by leave of the House, he will have something to say on that matter.

Mr. Gammans: My hon. Friend will realise, of course, that it would not affect the revenue of the Post Office. It would

affect, I think, the extent to which the Government Departments used the telephone. On the revenue side it would make no difference.

Sir R. Grimston: To a large extent I think, the figure is notional, and it is possible it might affect the revenue. I should, however, like to assure him that I am under no illusion as to the exact position, but it is quite obvious that the public and the "Evening Standard", to which he referred, are under a complete illusion on the subject which I think would be dispelled if we went back to the proper system and every Government Department paid for its services.
I go so far as to say that I believe that if, through this method, in one way or another the calls of Government Departments on the Post Office were reduced, it might well be there would be a supply of equipment and apparatus which the Post Office might be able to use in giving private commercial service which might bring it in a better revenue than it is getting notionally at present from Government Departments, and in that way it is possible that the position might be improved. In any case, I am certain that this is a step which could be taken in the interest of Government economy and probably in the interest of the working of the Post Office itself.
I now turn to the matter of the new machine for printing postal orders. I can well understand that it is being tested and that teething troubles have to be overcome, but, if it is a success, its use should mean a considerable saving in the issuing of postal orders and eventually a reduction in costs. Having one form of postal order on which different denominations can be printed must lead to some reduction in cost. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something further about the use of the machine and whether a reduction in costs is likely when it is used on a large scale.
This is a very limited Bill, and if I talked about some of the things which I should like to mention I should very soon be ruled out of order. I would merely say that the increased charges are regrettable. However, they are part of a movement which has been going on for some time. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us quite definitely that steps are being taken to go back to the pre-war method of accounting for


Government Departments. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposes to have a Division on his Amendment, because he is just as vulnerable as my hon. Friend, if not more so, but if he does so I assure him that the result will not be what he wishes.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: My hon. Friends and I thank the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) for the very fair, honest and objective statement he has made from his knowledge of the Post Office. We ought not to be loath to pass such a comment when we know that the remarks made on the Government side of the House are uttered in all sincerity. I propose to comment on certain matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and I hope to reply to his charge about the vulnerability of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards).
The Assistant Postmaster-General mentioned that it was originally intended that the increase in the poundage on postal orders should take place on 1st July. Were the Post Office prepared for that? Was all the printing done? Was the organisation for the distribution of the new postal orders prepared? Had it also been arranged that the millions of old postal orders in the country were to be recalled? Who fixed the original date of 1st July? Was it the Post Office or was it the Treasury? Like Brutus of old, I pause for a reply, but the Assistant Postmaster-General appears not to rise to the bait.
There seems to be an almost indecent haste about marrying this Bill to the Statute Book. A week last Friday we considered a Bill dealing with £75 million of capital expenditure on Post Office equipment. That seems to be the more important of the two Post Office Bills before the House. But there has been a dramatic change. The Bill dealing with the poundage on postal orders now seems to be the more important one. Why has there been this dramatic change in the Post Office order of priority? I suspect—I am now talking politically, and I make no bones about it—that, with their imperfections and inefficiencies, the Government have slipped up over the time factor and now find themselves in great difficulty.

Mr. Gammans: The change is not all that dramatic. The other Bill will be before us on Thursday.

Mr. Winterbottom: The order has been changed, and it has been done quickly. It will be recalled that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) likened the Assistant Postmaster-General to Mr. Pecksniff and to Uriah Heep. I do not subscribe to that view; my hon. Friend has the wrong fictional characters. In view of the circumstances in which the Assistant Postmaster-General finds himself in speaking, as the Assistant Postmaster-General, for the Treasury he is more in the position of the Artful Dodger.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: It is not possible even for the Assistant Postmaster-General to be likened to both Uriah Heep and Mr. Pecksniff. Uriah Heep was humility itself and Mr. Pecksniff had the superiority complex beyond description.

Mr. Winterbottom: The hon. Gentleman is not correcting me. He is correcting a statement by one of my hon. Friends, with which I disagree.
The hon. Member for Westbury spoke about a Gilbertian situation. What would Gilbert have said had he been describing the relationship between the Post Office and the Treasury? I think he would have said, on the lines of "The Charge of the Light Brigade," something like this:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
That's for the Treasury, noble Post Office.
The crux of the problem is in the facetiousness of the doggerel.
The Assistant Postmaster-General finds great difficulty in replying to most Post Office debates because the Post Office organisation is severely restricted by the over-all financial control vested in the Treasury. I do not think the Assistant Postmaster-General will deny that if the finances of this great public service were wholly in the hands of the Postmaster-General and his staff there would be no need for this miserable Bill. The increase in the poundage on postal orders and the increase in telephone charges would have been unnecessary.
I do not think it is the slightest use the Assistant Postmaster-General stating, as


he did during the Committee stage of the Bill—which authorises £75 million capital expenditure—that the services given by the Post Office to other State Departments are adequately credited in the commercial accounts of the Post Office. He is really defending the Treasury. Indeed, last Wednesday, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), who asked what annual revenue the Minister expected to obtain from renting to the Service Departments £25 million worth of equipment provided for in the Post Office and Telegraph Money Bill, 1952, the Assistant Postmaster-General said:
Facilities provided for Service Departments regardless of whether they involve the use of new equipment or existing equipment, are credited in the commercial accounts of the Post Office at normal commercial rentals."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 95.]
It is about the normal commercial rentals that I want to join issue with the Assistant Postmaster-General.
He is not claiming that the £23 million last year is an exact sum, but I think he will agree that it is a computed sum which goes through the commercial accounts of the Post Office, and that the inference that the full services given to State Departments by the Post Office are adequately repaid in the commercial accounts is therefore wrong. Last year the figure was £23 million. I ask the hon. Gentleman a straight question: Is he satisfied that the sum credited in the commercial accounts is adequate to pay for all the services given by the Post Office to the State Departments? If he is satisfied about that, well and good.
I hope he will give us some indication or some formula on which those credits are based. I believe the House has a right to know how those credits are computed and how they are taken through the commercial accounts. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that they are vital matters to this House and should be looked at before he starts fiddling away with coppers on the poor man's cheque, the postal order.
We have always contended that the Post Office is vital to almost every section of complicated British life, and especially to industry, commerce and the social forces of the country. We agree that the Post Office should make some contribution to the finances of the State, much

along the lines of the statement made by the hon. Member for Westbury. It should pay its way in the totality of its operations. Having said that, we strongly oppose the idea that the Post Office should be a revenue-producing department for the Treasury. Is it so?
I am claiming that almost every State Department waxes fat on its relationship with the Post Office. They do not pay directly, and I do not believe that they pay adequately, for the services given to them by the Post Office. I am speaking with reference to the commercial accounts. I do not believe that they pay adequately even in credit, for the services given to them.
The Minister has quoted the leading article in a newspaper last week. I am not going to challenge him about the £16 million profit, but other figures were given in that article which ought to be accepted or denied. The article stated that the State Departments have 20 million trunk calls per year, that more than a million telegrams are sent by the State Departments with Post Office machinery, and that Departments make more than 100 million local calls.
I suggest that the whole of the services given by the Post Office to the State Departments have not been enumerated in that article. There are the private exchanges in the big State Departments and State Offices and the communication services in the Army, Navy and Air Force, all with Post Office equipment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Bill deals with the increase of poundage on postal orders. The debate is going far beyond that.

Mr. Winterbottom: I am trying to deal with credits made through the commercial accounts. If you look at the text of the Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will see that it asks for an opportunity
of examining the organisation of the Post Office financial system,
and for a correction of that system before the Bill is accepted by the House.
All these things are offset by the hon. Gentleman in accepting £23 million, as he did last year, for all these services. If there were an examination for membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and we said, "Here are the cash accounts and the commercial


accounts of the Post Office, and here are the services that were given. Make a computation of the value of those services, "and if the student returned the reply,"£23 million," we would mark that answer with a great big black cross. The cheapest form of expense in all State Departments is that which they give in terms of credit to the Post Office commercial accounts.
That brings me to the point of the Amendment. Why should the general public, industry, commerce and social relations have to pay an excess figure when the State Departments are being undercharged considerably at the present time? That is the gravamen of the charge contained in the Amendment. I believe it is sufficiently important for the Minister to have the indulgence of the House to make another speech in reply to those questions.
I come to the speech made by the hon. Member for Westbury. He said, in effect, "The former Postmaster-General was as vulnerable on this question of the relationship between the Post Office and the Treasury as is the Minister in the present Government."

Mr. Nabarro: I heard the speech. Surely my hon. Friend said that the former Postmaster-General was equally vulnerable in the matter of costs.

Mr. Winterbottom: I thought he conveyed a wider meaning than that of costs.

Sir R. Grimston: As I made the speech perhaps I might say something. My intention was to convey that the former Postmaster-General was equally vulnerable as regards costs, but I did say something also about Government Department accountability. We pressed the right hon. Gentleman on that. At first he was very slow, and we nearly got him to the stage of accepting.

Mr. Winterbottom: I am coming to the defence of that point. I think it is true that when the last Labour Government went to the country, my right hon. Friend was considering that problem, because of the pressure that had been put on him by the House and because he thought that the relationship between the Post Office and the Treasury was wrong. I will not go further than say that consideration was being given to the problem.

I do not know what the result would have been, but an examination was taking place on this matter. Can the Assistant Postmaster-General say that such consideration is being given by the present Government now or can he give some indication to us that it will be given within the near future?
If consideration is not being given to this important matter now, why not? Many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, were very critical when they were on this side of the House and they pressed such an examination upon my right hon. Friend. If they are giving consideration to it, why proceed with a Bill which, even if it were withdrawn, would not break the Post Office Savings Bank or lower the prestige of the Assistant Postmaster-General? He could follow the precedent of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week on the problem of the B.B.C. Governors. If that did not affect the prestige of the right hon. Gentleman—or did it?—this probably would not affect the prestige of the Assistant Postmaster-General.
I suggest that it would be a good thing if the Government withdrew this petty-fogging, narrow Bill which attacks the poorest in our community. On the 5s. postal order, 3d. will have to be paid by the man who is having his little flutter on the pools with Littlewoods.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is not correct because the figure is 2d. on the 5s. postal order.

Mr. Winterbottom: I think it is 2d. at the present time.

Mr. Nabarro: No. It is 3d. on the 5s. 1d. postal order.

Mr. Winterbottom: Then he will have to pay 3d. on a 5s. 1d. postal order, whereas the man who settles his gambling debts with his bookie only has to pay 2d. on a £1,000 cheque. That comparison is obvious and the Government should think about it. After all, this Government has prated more about economy, especially economy in State Departments, than any Government within memory.

Mr. Baxter: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that a bank which charges 2d. on a cheque gives a service in addition?

Mr. Winterbottom: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, because it will cost a man 3d. to send a 5s. 1d. postal order and only 2d. for a £1,000 cheque or even a £10,000 cheque. That argument makes it much worse.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) is arguing against himself.

Mr. Winterbottom: It means that every time the poor man is having to pay more than the rich man, and this from a Government which has prated about economy.
The Assistant Postmaster - General quoted an article today. Does he not think that State Departments, and especially the Services, if they knew they had to pay for every telephone call and every telegram they sent, would have a very different attitude towards telephone calls and telegrams, with possibly a great saving in consequence? I do not know whether it is true, but the article said that in 1922 the Post Office began to charge the other Departments and that, in consequence, there was a reduction of about 50 per cent. in the number of telegrams sent. The keynote of Government policy has been economy and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might look elsewhere for the exercise of that economy.
I started by talking about people in literature and I shall finish on the same note. I want to remind the hon. Gentleman of a story by John Bunyan. If the Assistant Postmaster-General will recall the story, he will know that Mr. Little Faith, who was robbed in Dead Man's Lane, lost his coppers out of his pocket. He was robbed of his spending money but the thieves left the jewels. The Government are doing precisely that in this Bill. They are taking the poor man's copper and leaving untouched the possibility of much greater economies by neglecting the long-overdue financial re-organisation of the Post Office.
That is the gravamen of our charge against this Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman to face all the implications of the Bill in a different way from that in which he moved it, as if it were something to be slipped through the House. It is a vital matter because it reflects the attitude of the Government to the haves and have-nots in our land and again it is penalising the have-nots.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Bill in order to give satisfaction to the loyal band of people in this magnificent service who are doing a first-class job of work. They do not like to think that their efforts are frittered away because of this wrong relationship between the Treasury and the Post Office. I also ask the hon. Gentleman to give satisfaction to the long-suffering public who know that they are being fleeced by the present charges because of the impositions of the Treasury on the Post Office; and I want him to give satisfaction to this House because it is time the relationship between the Post Office and the Treasury was corrected. This Bill is not worthy of any British Government, even of this Government, and I put that low enough by saying that it is the worst Government within living memory.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bright-side (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) is tempting providence by making literary allusions, and perhaps he should be reminded of one which is more appropriate to himself and to the party which he so ably represents, the Rake's Progress: because on this side of this House we recollect how, when his party were in power for six years, they caused the situation which makes this Bill necessary.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by one of his hon. Friends who pointed out that the difficulty of this situation was tackled by my right hon. Friend at the first possible opportunity?

Mr. Renton: If the remarks of the hon. Gentleman had been confined to that situation I might have been inclined to agree with his speech, but he went far beyond that situation and tried to make out that this was an attempt on the part of the present Government to get something out of the poor. The synthetic indignation and spurious pity of the hon. Gentleman were inappropriate to this occasion.
The truth is that we have here a serious Bill which affects Post Office administration. The need for it arises from the immensely increased costs which the Post Office has had to face, costs amounting to 25 per cent. in two years—and the present Government were not in power


during those two years; it was the hon. Member's hon. Friends who were in office. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member to address his mind to the matter in that light, and perhaps when he comes to read his speech, he will do so with the due measure of shame that he should have.
I should like to deal first with the Bill and then with the Amendment. I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), and I marvelled at the way in which he managed to make and to repeat so many fallacies so frequently in such a short space of time. There was, however, one matter in which I strongly agree with him, and which, I think, my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General should explain to the House quite fully.
We find on page 23 of the Financial Statement accompanying this year's Budget that there are to be altogether four increases in this particular character of charge, whereas the Bill deals with only one of them. My hon. Friend gave a very interesting historical survey to the background of the Bill, but he did not explain the reason why, when four increased charges are to be made, only one of them comes into the amending Bill. It would be most valuable if we could have an explanation of that important point.
In passing, and on the question of explanation, I wonder whether my hon. Friend could explain how it is that the ancient word "poundage" is used in connection with the Bill. The amounts with which the Bill deals are not pounds but guineas. It may well be that there is some interesting explanation, and it might just as well be put on record on this occasion.
I regret that while we have an amending Bill before the House, it does not deal with various other matters also. The service which the Post Office provides is a valuable service, one which, I should have thought, might be increasingly encouraged and used and which might bring in, perhaps, still further revenue to the Post Office. I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether it would not be possible to allow the maximum rate of postal order, which at present stands at only 40s., to be raised. Of course, money orders can be for larger amounts, but they arise in a different way. I should have

thought that here was an opportunity for the Post Office to earn increased revenue.
Another question is of the international use of postal orders. I remember well before the war once being stranded on holiday abroad. I had run out of money and I sent a telegram home. I forget whether the money was telegraphed back to me by means of a system which then was available, or whether, I being on the move, the money was sent to me in the form of a postal order or money order. Presumably, it was not a postal order, because I do not think that 40s. would have gone quite far enough.
At any rate, as one who has Liberal instincts, I look forward to the day when we have complete freedom in the transfer of money from country to country. I know that in our present difficult circumstances it is not an easy matter to arrange, but at the same time it is a matter to which the Post Office should be constantly applying its mind so that when it becomes a facility which can be more easily arranged, the machinery is there for putting it into operation.
My hon. Friend in opening the debate referred to the various figures in relation to the operation of the postal order service. It is a well known fact, however, at any rate among lawyers, that a great deal of money is lost to the Post Office every year by the fact that a number of postal orders are stolen and then cashed, sometimes, I am sorry to say, by postal employees, and sometimes by people who have broken into post offices.
In view of the recent bank-notes robbery case, it would be interesting to know whether the loss to the Post Office through the stealing or embezzlement of postal orders in a year is a serious one or whether it is a negligible matter, and to what extent it is reflected in the figures which my hon. Friend has given in order to justify the increased charge.
As I understood it, my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) was saying that when the Post Office came to consider the colour of the new stamps which had to be brought out, it might be a useful economy to have one standard colour for the different values of stamps. If that was what he meant——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is going beyond both the Bill and the Amendment, in which there is nothing anywhere about stamps.

Mr. Renton: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this is a Second Reading debate. I submit that, it being an amending Bill, it is permissible to deal with the subject matter of the previous legislation and that in any event the word "poundage" is synonymous virtually with the word "stamp." It is the poundage which is being increased in the Bill.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that for amounts which fall between the prescribed denominations of postal orders—that is, between 5s. and 6s., for example—the amount has to be made up by a stamp stuck on to the postal order? I submit with very great respect that the colour of stamps is, therefore, a material matter in consideration of all questions affecting postal orders.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that is going very wide of it.

Mr. Renton: Those are the only comments I have to make by way of constructive suggestion about the contents of the Bill, and I revert now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly.
I will willingly give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer this question, because he dealt with a matter which is of fundamental importance, not only in the context of the Bill, but in relation to so many nationalisation problems which arise and of which this is an example. That is why I venture to put it before the House. If I have recorded him rightly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government should relate their charges to the cost of particular services. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether that is the most recent exposition of Socialist doctrine as to the costing of nationalised industries?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not know what that has to do with the debate. What I was contending was that by and large the Post Office should be run as a commercial undertaking over all its services, making charges that related to the service and not treating them as a means of getting extraordinary revenue.

Mr. Renton: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is inconsistent with itself. Either we can say that a particular service like the Post Office is to pay when everything has come out at the end of the financial year, so

that there is a profit taking all its services together—a profit on some and a loss on others—or we can say what the right hon. Gentleman appears to say in his speech and at the end of his remarks just now, that we can relate each charge to the cost of the particular service to which it refers with a view to making that service pay. If that is the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman favours it is of course very proper, as a matter of policy, that the country should know.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Member says "if that is" as if he has some doubt about it and then goes on to argue on the basis that it is so. Really he should listen to what is said. What I said was that, by and large, over all the services we should try to arrange that at the end of the year we get a commercial surplus. If we were to impose increases, the great virtue for increasing a charge is in that section of the services which is incurring a loss. There are other considerations which enter into the matter. As he knows, the telegraph service will not stand a greater charge—it would kill it—but that is not true of every other service. In that sense, in a purely efficient commercial way, one has to look at the Post Office and not regard it as a means of getting taxation for the Chancellor.

Mr. Renton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; we shall read and correlate the various statements with a view to seeing where the Socialist Party stand in regard to these matters.
One important question which arises is that of the Post Office surplus. I think it regrettable that all parties in the past have grown to regard the Post Office as a revenue-producing Department. Candidly, I think that is regrettable. That does not mean that there is no need for this charge. As my hon. Friend pointed out, this charge is necessary for a twofold reason; first, that Post Office costs generally have increased in the last two years by 25 per cent. and, secondly, the cost of operating this particular service has also increased.
Thirdly, the object for the Post Office, as for all other nationalised industries, should be, first, to make them pay after running them as economically as possible and, secondly, if there is a surplus, they should pass the benefit of the surplus on to the consumer so far as possible. Personally, I think all parties


have been to blame in the past in allowing the Post Office to reach its present stage. I do not think that on discussion of this Bill we can blame the Government, even if it should be found that they are making this increase to sustain the surplus.
I hope you will stop me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I get out of order; it is very difficult to discuss this argument without referring to other matters as well. We have to face the fact that when the Chancellor made his Budget, of which these charges were an essential part, he had very little room in which to manoeuvre. The country was plunging towards bankruptcy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Members may groan, but they are groaning only at their own performance—plunging towards bankruptcy at the rate of £100 million a month after borrowing £2,000 million in six years.
That did not give the Chancellor very much opportunity for making those radical changes in the financial structure of our country which he might well have wished to make. He has made some and is beginning on others, but he could not make them all. Expressing a purely personal view, I hope the day will come when the Chancellor will regard the Post Office as a service which should be provided for the country at the minimum possible cost.
Turning to the Amendment, I am quite amazed that hon. Members opposite should put down an Amendment in such a severe form of self-criticism. The Amendment suggests that things should be done which I know the right hon. Gentleman had started to try to do during his tenure of office—a very distinguished tenure, if I may say so—but which his party had six years in which to do it. There were six years in which he would have had a great deal of encouragement from all sides of the House if he or his predecessors had made a serious attempt to improve matters. If this criticism is merited—and I am not saying that it is—it is criticism which should be directed against the party opposite for their wasted opportunities.
As to the last lines of the Amendment, at the risk of repeating a remark I made in opening my speech, I say that it is simply playing politics and has very little relation to the serious foundations of the Bill to say that this places an unfair

burden on the poorer sections of the community. That is not a very notable contribution to national recovery.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I was astonished at the speech of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). He has not attempted to deal with the subject matter of the Bill, nor with the Amendment. He has made political attacks which he knows to be entirely wrong. He suggests that within the six years we happened to be in office we did not do enough. How often has he said that we did too much?
Does he really think that it was possible in the course of six years to clear up all the mess left by our predecessors and, at the same time, to deal with every point which he would have rectified? It will not do. He admits that my right hon. Friend was proposing to put into operation the improvements to which he referred. It was only because, unfortunately, not a majority, but a large portion, of the electorate chose to displace my right hon. Friend that we were not able to proceed along the lines he indicated.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: This is a very important point. We have not been told as yet in this debate, or at any other time as far as I am aware, that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) did, in fact, intend to put these important reforms into operation. This afternoon we have been told that he had been thinking about that.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Member had followed the previous debate he would have known that I said that we had arrived at political agreement with regard to the payment by other Departments and I discussed it with the then Prime Minister and agreed in principle to the appointment of a new Bridgeman Committee.

Mr. Thompson: This is all secret.

Mr. Ness Edwards: No.

Mr. Janner: I was about to say that myself. I am glad of the intervention, but it was not necessary because, if the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) had been present he would have known that his hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston)


had admitted that progress was being made in that regard. If the hon. Member refers to HANSARD tomorrow he will see that there was no need for him to make that intervention.
On the political aspect of this matter, there can be no question that before the advent of the very important Labour Government which did so much—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too much."] There we are, an hon. Member says "Too much," yet the hon. Member for Walton says it was not enough. Probably hon. Members opposite will be able to come to some modus vivendi between themselves in due course.
Coming to the subject-matter of the Amendment, anyone who examines it must come to the conclusion that it ought to be supported. In dealing with the reason why it should be supported, I will take, first, the second part of the Amendment. I ask hon. Members whether it is not a fact that this Bill is an attack upon the poorer sections of the community——

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell (Bucks, South) rose——

Mr. Janner: I have given way sufficiently for the moment. Perhaps I will give way to the hon. Member later.
This is a very important Measure indeed, because it shows that there is a direct attack in the Bill itself upon the poorer sections of the community. I will give examples to show how. I take, first, the question of payments by instalments. When a person enters into a hire-purchase agreement it is because he is not sufficiently wealthy to be able to purchase that commodity outright, except when, under certain special circumstances, he wishes to have service during the period of the agreement. Under such an agreement a person has to send the payment either by cash or by postal order or by money order——

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the overwhelming majority of payments made under hire-purchase arrangements are made in cash either at the place of purchase or to a legal agent? Has the hon. Gentleman ever studied the operations of Great Universal Stores, of which I understood he was a supporter?

Mr. Janner: I know a lot, in a legal capacity, about the hire-purchase system;

I know much more than does the hon. Member about the operation of the system.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member knows a great deal about it, but it is not in order to deal with it on this Bill.

Mr. Janner: I was challenged as to my ability to illustrate, from the point of view of the hire-purchase system, the assertion made in the Amendment I know exactly what happens in that respect, and if the hon. Member wishes to have details, I will tell him later, and he will be convinced.
Usually a person has either to send his hire-purchase instalment by post or pay the transport charges entailed by having to go to the office and pay in cash, or else he has to take the risk of sending cash by ordinary post. The result is that every time an instalment of that nature is paid the person paying it has to pay the charge of a postal order, and he has to pay an additional charge which has been imposed on postage by the Government, which is so anxious to do so much for so many. The cost of the postage stamp has been increased, and now that of the postal order will be increased, and every instalment that is paid will incur an additional charge.
Let me give another illustration. I take the position of the tenant of a house. According to the law, and it is being used in a very harsh manner by many landlords, the landlord is not compelled to call upon a tenant to collect the rent—that matter has been raised in this House on a number of occasions. The tenant is thus compelled to send his rent to the landlord by post. Every week, if the landlord insists upon that right, the tenant has to send a postal order or cash.
The additional 1d. charge or 2d. charge which is to be made is of considerable importance to poor tenants. It means nothing to the rich tenant, but it means a considerable amount to a poor tenant. [An HON. MEMBER: "A penny."] Oh, yes, a penny means a lot to those whom we are considering, and that is why I say that our Amendment is particularly applicable in asserting that the Bill strikes at the poorest elements of the community.
I will give another example. There are many county courts which have made orders for payments by instalments. The


hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) is himself a lawyer. Does he realise that hundreds of thousands of these orders are made throughout the country, under which the person who is to make the payment must either go to the county court, which may be miles away from where he is living, or must send the small instalments, which may be as small as 1s., 2s. or 5s. a month, by means of cash, which may be lost in the post, or by means of a postal order?
Every time such a person sends his 5s., the additional 1d. will mean a considerable amount to him. Such a sum does not mean much perhaps to the one who is paying by means of a cheque, but it represents a lot to the poorest elements in our community, people who have been unable to meet their debts in full, and whose circumstances are so poor that they have been allowed to pay by small instalments.
These may appear to be trivialities to the Assistant Postmaster-General, but they are not so to many hundreds of thousands of people to whom a 1d. makes a world of difference, and who have to be considered in these matters. There is the question of the small gambler—the man who participates in the football pools, for example. We may agree with the system or not; that is a matter which does not come within the scope of today's debate. The fact is, however, that if a small gambler wishes to send an entry to a football pool he will be charged more. If he happens to be a person who sends bets amounting to thousands of pounds to a bookmaker, the 2d. stamp on his cheque is sufficient.
It has been suggested that a service is given by the bank but that makes the position even worse than if there were no such service. I say that because for that 2d. the bank gives a service whereas for the postal order one buys there is no service rendered at all except the service which is referred to in the other part of the Amendment. I could further illustrate the difficulties that will come to poor people——

Sir Ian Fraser: Surely the bank is paid by the bank charge, and not by the stamp.

Mr. Janner: Well, it depends. Perhaps the hon. Member has not made proper

arrangements with his bank manager. There are many people who get through without paying the bank charge to which he refers.

Sir I. Fraser: But even if that is so, it is not the stamp on the cheque which pays the bank. That is a tax, is it not?

Mr. Janner: The stamp on the cheque is taken by the Revenue and that is precisely what we are driving at. The Assistant Postmaster-General must know that it is not a question of the Post Office which is involved here. It is a question of the Treasury forcing out of the poorest —I do not say that in a political sense, I think this should be regarded irrespective of party because it is of material importance—there is no point in the hon. Member for Kidderminster sneering about it——

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose——

Mr. Janner: The hon. Member must realise that his own constituents feel the same way and that if he asks them he will find that is so.
The fact is that the Postmaster-General is now being compelled to take from the pockets of those who cannot afford it a very substantial sum of money in order to help the Exchequer. In our Amendment we asked that, before a charge of this kind is levied, there should be:
an opportunity of examining the organisation of the Post Office financial system with a view to providing for accounting on a commercial basis.
Only a few days ago I pointed out by means of Questions and supplementary questions in this House that not only are the poor, as we understand that term this afternoon, being affected, but that the very life-blood of this country is being affected in consequence of the fact that the Treasury is compelling the Post Office to act as the Treasury's instrument against the best interests of the country.
The same kind of thing is happening with the addition on the postage for air mail. The export system of this country is being heavily attacked. It cannot send abroad samples, even for textiles, to a proper extent because of the additional charges. In this Bill there is another illustration of the same thing; something which instead of affecting the commercial community is affecting the poorest who cannot, or ought not to be, called to contribute towards the Treasury in the manner suggested.
There have been a lot of quotations this afternoon and I would commend one quotation to the Assistant Postmaster-General which may help him in this matter. It would appear that the Treasury have been reading Wordsworth of late. Perhaps they have read this particular quotation:
To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do lie too deep for tears.
The meanest flower here has brought thoughts that lie far too deep for tears so far as the community is concerned, but not too deep for tears so far as the Exchequer is concerned. They are going to the meanest flower—the humblest people—to wreak vengeance on the community as a whole, by taking coppers from the pockets of the people for a service which ought to be carried out—as has already been pointed out—for the benefit of those who use it.
I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General, having referred to the fact that a new machine is to be introduced for the purpose of producing postal orders, will not overlook the fact that that is due to those serving the community at Dollis Hill. It is a great misfortune that those who serve in the postal service should have to be faced with objections created by us, particularly when those objections are based upon the use of the customer's money for the purpose of helping in a direction which is entirely outside their field.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The speech made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) did not even follow his customary lines of exaggeration. This time he floated happily in the realms of hyperbole. He exaggerated ten thousand fold the very minor effects that these modest increases in the postal order charges will have on the community——

Mr. Janner: May I ask——

Mr. Nabarro: When I have finished this sentence I shall be happy to give way.
I would remind the House exactly what this Bill proposes to do, particularly in view of the diatribe, the long drawn out diatribe from the hon. Member, that only the very poorest section of the community would be affected by the Bill.

The proposals are, for postal orders up to 1s. there should be an increase of ½d.; postal orders from 1s. 6d. to 5s. will also cost ½d. more; postal orders from 6s. to 21s. will cost 1d. more, and postal orders of 40s. will cost 2d. more.

Mr. Janner: As the hon. Member is so sure of his ground, will he tell the House how much money it is expected will be raised from these pennies and halfpennies, and then say who will pay them?

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman will abide in patience for a short while he will hear all these facts alluded to in the course of my speech.
Representing, as I do, the ancient borough of Kidderminster, I have, of course, an abiding interest in the matter of postal charges, for I am sure my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will not have forgotten that Sir Rowland Hill, who introduced the penny post, was born in Kidderminster, and that his statue now adorns the approaches to the town hall.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: He would turn in his grave.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member says that he would turn in his grave. I will relate to him a very amusing story which will also effectively reply to the grossly false assertions made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West. During the last Parliament postal charges were increased by a Socialist Government. The last vestige of the penny post finally disappeared in 1951 as a result of legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) during his term of office as Postmaster-General.

Mr. Ness Edwards: indicated assent.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman is very honest in his approach to these matters. He is nodding his head vigorously. He knows that he is the culprit in the matter.
What did the burgesses of Kidderminster do when the last vestige of the penny post disappeared? They dressed the statue of Rowland Hill in black. It was done in the dead of night. Nobody discovered who was responsible for dressing up the statue. But it was an


expression of their dissatisfaction with the fact that the Socialist Minister who was responsible for these matters had found it necessary to make those increased charges.
I do not say that in similar circumstances a Conservative Minister might not also have been obliged to make those increased charges. What I object to is the cant, hypocrisy and humbug of hon. Gentlemen opposite who seem to infer by their speeches that these increased charges would only be made under a Conservative Government and that they would never have been made under a Socialist Government.

Mr. Janner: indicated dissent.

Mr. Nabarro: It is no good the hon. Gentleman nodding his head. Tomorrow he can read his speech in HANSARD. He will find it there.

Mr. Janner: It is a Conservative Government who are imposing the charges. That is what we are complaining about.

Mr. Nabarro: A Conservative Government is imposing these charges as a result of the inflationary policy pursued for six years by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But let me return to a few non-party matters.
It has been said that the increase in costs to the General Post Office this year as compared with two years ago will be of the order of 25 per cent. It is much more important that the increase in cost should be expressed in pounds. So far as the Post Office assessors are able to estimate at present, they estimate that the increase will be of the order of £50 million in the year 1952–53 as compared with a similar accounting period two years ago. But out of that £50 million £33 million is accounted for by increased salaries, wages and pension fund allotments. Thirty-three million pounds out of £50 million is on account of those three items. That is a major consideration.
Last November, only a few weeks after the present Government took office, there was a substantial increase in pay awarded to almost all grades serving in the Post Office. I was especially pleased that the ordinary postman grades, the lower paid grades in the Post Office, received a substantial share of that increase in wages.

I have felt for many years—and I know that sympathy with this view will be expressed in all parts of the House—that two categories of public servants have been consistently underpaid in the last 50 years—railway employees and Post Office employees.
It may be said that Post Office employees enjoy special pension benefits, security of tenure in their employment and other similar advantages. It is a fact, however, that the ordinary postmen, those who walk on their flat feet from door to door in all sorts of weathers, especially in the rural areas, were deserving of a substantially higher rate of pay than that which they enjoyed in the five or six years immediately after the war. I welcomed that increase in pay.
But 66⅔ per cent. of all the increased costs of the Post Office this year are accounted for by increases in wages, salaries and pension fund allotments. Therefore, this modest charge which the present Government seek to add to postal orders in their various categories can be off-set as to two-thirds against the increased cost of wages, salaries and pension fund allotments.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the statement made by the Assistant Postmaster-General he will recognise that this proposed increased charge will raise £1 million more than is required to meet all these increases in relation to this service and will leave a profit of £100,000.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not think that— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is becoming vociferous. He has just walked into the Chamber for the first time. He has no knowledge of what has been said on either side of the House before his arrival. I advise him to keep quiet until he has more knowledge of the subject.
I do not believe that it is possible to extract one item of cost from the general background of all Post Office costs and charges and to say that this will show an excess over expenditure in any chargeable accounting period. Surely each item should be considered in relation to the finances of the Post Office as a whole. I am informed in this matter that the postal order service would have shown a deficit of £130,000 in the current chargeable accounting period had it not been for the increased charges. Clearly, if the Post


Office as a whole is to break even, or to show a modest profit, it is desirable that each constituent part of the whole should equally show a modest profit or at least break even.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. As he himself admitted, were it not for these increased charges the Post Office estimate that on this service they would lose £130,000. The Assistant Postmaster-General has agreed that the charge he now imposes on this service will raise £1,300,000. That really answers the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nabarro: On the contrary, it does nothing of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman is applying his disingenuous argument and trying to pull wool over the eyes of everybody who has listened throughout the debate. I can only repeat that each constituent part of the Post Office service should break even or make a small profit. Whether the amount of £1 million materialises can only be judged in 1953 when the accounts for the Post Office for the previous accounting period become known.
The right hon. Gentleman had a great deal to say about football pools. His hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West made out a case, or attempted to do so, to show that these additional postal order charges would afflict only the poorer section of the community. I wonder who can say how many tens of millions of pounds are spent on football pools each year.

Mr. W. Nally: Fifty-eight million to £60 million.

Mr. Nabarro: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is an authority on these matters. I readily accept that figure as being correct. I do not do football pools myself. I have never done them or engaged in them.

Mr. Nally: Neither have I.

Mr. Nabarro: Neither does any member of my family. At the same time, I have no objection to anyone else doing them if they wish. I have no objection to anybody taking part. It is fair to say that most football pool bets are paid by postal order. I am told also that the average investment per week in a football pool is 2s. 6d. I stand to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nally: It is slightly higher. It is difficult to get accurate figures.

Mr. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that it is about 2s. 6d.?

Mr. Nally: Yes.

Mr. Nabarro: I am most grateful, because I am trying to pursue an arithmetical calculation. If £60 million is spent in a year on football pools and the average contribution is about 2s. 6d. and most of them are paid for by postal order, then something like 480 million postal orders are used for paying football pool speculations in a year.
As a result of this Bill the average investment of 2s. 6d., if it is made by postal order, will cost each investor an extra halfpenny. I suggest to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West that the majority of all postal orders used in the lower denominations are used for football pool purposes.

Mr. Nally: The hon. Gentleman has put forward a fascinating point. He must realise that it would have been far more simple and honest to say that at present the State takes 30 per cent. of total football pools revenue in tax, and that it could have raised anything it wanted by increasing the direct tax by 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. That would have raised slightly more than the figure which the Assistant Postmaster-General wants and it would have done it without involving anyone in hardship—such as a person living in my division and working somewhere else who wants to send money home to his family.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; that is a point of view. All I am doing is responding to the expression of opinion from the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, who said that these increases in charges hit only the poorest section of the community. In fact, the people who are to contribute a large part of the increased charges for postal orders are the people who buy postal orders for football pools.

Mr. Janner: The hon. Gentleman is entirely misrepresenting what I said. I said that, in so far as gamblers were concerned—and I expressed no opinion whether it was good, bad or indifferent—it was the poor gambler, the poor man


who wanted to have his flutter, who was affected, as against the rich man who would not be caught by it.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman really suggest to the House that it will be a material consideration to the football pool gambler, even if he is a little man, whether he has to pay an extra halfpenny for his postal order? Of course it is not; he will still make the same speculation, and he will not notice the halfpenny.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the taxation of football pools, may I remind him that, quite apart from the 30 per cent. direct taxation on football pools today, a football pool undertaking pays Income Tax on profits at the rate of 9s. 6d. in the £, Profits Tax at a rate of 2½per cent. on retained profits and of 22½ per cent. on distributed profits, and 30 per cent. in respect of Excess Profits Levy.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really do not think that we are debating football pools.

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. I would appreciate your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in case I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later. Far be it from me to defend the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), but I would have thought myself that, if one was arguing about a particular industry that is primarily involved in the Bill to which we are now asked to give a Second Reading, the way in which that particular industry handles its accounts, what it pays and does not pay—which are points on which the hon. Gentleman and I would have a very serious disagreement indeed—are relevant if one is putting forward, as one is entitled to do on Second Reading, alternatives directly in relation to those who are the recipients, eventually, of a large part of the finance that is embodied in this Bill. I submit, with great respect, that what the hon. Gentleman said is relevant, and that even to say what football pool firms do and do not do is directly related to the Bill, 80 per cent. of which may be concerned with football pool revenue.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think it is, because the Bill only increases the poundage on postal orders.

Mr. Nabarro: I shall endeavour not to stray outside the rules of order in future, but I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow me to say in conclusion on this point, that the football pools do pay approximately 70 per cent. of their profits in direct taxation to the Chancellor as an aggregate of Income Tax, Profits Tax and Excess Profits Levy.
I said that, of the £50 million additional costs which the Post Office will have to face this year on account of miscellaneous causes, about two-thirds would be attributed to wages, salaries and pension fund allotments. The remaining one-third of the additional cost, which is, after all, primarily the cause of increased postal order charges, is on account of a variety of operational items.
Those hon. Members opposite who pointed an accusing finger at my hon. Friend for making increases in the charges have conveniently forgotten the fact that the postal services are essentially a matter of distribution, and that distributive costs are the principal item which enter into the whole question involved in the costs of postal services of every character. Hon. Members opposite would do well to remember that, in 1950, a Socialist Government, for the first time, introduced Purchase Tax on commercial vehicles. In the following year, they increased the petrol duty for the third time since the end of the war. These two items alone would have added millions of pounds to the cost of postal services.
A very high percentage of the postal services are now carried out by road transport, both in urban and rural areas. Every new Post Office van which has had to be bought since 1950 has had to pay Purchase Tax. All the petrol consumed in these vans since 1950—and that is the basic year to which I refer in connection with the increase in operating costs—has cost something of the order of 1s. 6d. per gallon more than it cost two years ago. On account of the action taken by a Socialist Government in pursuing a policy which was thoroughly inflationary, and that is, after all, the reason——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is really getting beyond the Bill.

Mr. Nabarro: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is impossible to justify the reasons for the increased


charges for postal orders, which is the purpose of the Bill, without putting forward the causes of the increased costs of postal services and those causes, in my respectful submission, are actions of a fiscal character taken by the late Socialist Administration. That is the principal cause of these increases in charges. I hope, therefore, that I may be permitted, within the rules of order, to refer to the provisions of the Finance Acts of 1950 and 1951—Socialist Measures.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: And the Finance Act of 1952?

Mr. Nabarro: In both of those Acts, there were onerous——

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I think the rest of the House would be grateful for a Ruling as to how far a discussion of fiscal changes generally, and, in particular, the increase in the petrol duty in 1950, is relevant to the question before the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: My opinion was that it was not relevant, because this Bill deals with the rates of poundage on postal orders, and I think we have got beyond that now.

Mr. Nabarro: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I shall try, for the remainder of my speech, to keep strictly in order. I hope that you will allow me to make some reference to devaluation of sterling in 1949, which, after all, is the cause of so many raw commodities increasing in cost by 40 per cent. and thus adding to the operating costs of the Post Office. That is a primary consideration among the matters which have led to my hon. Friend increasing the charges.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that will be getting too far remote from the Bill.

Mr. Nabarro: The whole onus of responsibility for raising the charges for postal orders in this Bill must rest fairly and squarely on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly and his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who introduced the pernicious Finance Bill of 1951.
May I now pass to more constructive matters? I cannot quite understand why it has been necessary in this Bill only to

deal with the price of postal orders and to exclude money orders.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Order.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying "Order," but I believe that, on Second Reading, it would be permissible to refer to exclusions from the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I said "Order" because I saw an hon. Member on that side of the House walking between the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and the Chair, which, I understand, is a breach of order.

Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: Does not that frequently happen on both sides of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman merely wasting time by drawing your attention to the matter?

Mr. Nabarro: I have no doubt, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman concerned will have incurred your displeasure for a breach of good order, and I will therefore pursue the point I was making.
I cannot understand why only postal order charges have been alluded to in this small Bill and why money orders, and the price of them, have been excluded from consideration under it. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General can inform us on that point.

Mr. Gammans: That is easy. It is because the right hon. Gentleman put that up last year.

Mr. Nabarro: I must protest against the rag and tatter method by which we appear to be proceeding in this matter. Why is it necessary to continue to have this distinction between postal and money orders? Why cannot we have one document to cover the whole field?

Mr. Gammans: The difference is this. A postal order is for a much smaller amount and has a far less rigid degree of security. In the case of a money order, an arrangement is made with the office for acceptance, and that is why it is used more for higher amounts. I do not want to dilate on the point, but that is the explanation.

Mr. Nabarro: I quite agree that there are minor reasons for this difference, but is it not possible to introduce one document which will serve the dual purpose? Does the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) wish to intervene? If he does, perhaps he will get to his feet.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. He is confusing me with someone else. I did not speak at all. This is the second time he has shown discourtesy to me and it is something I have come to expect from him.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose——

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has only been here for 10 minutes. He has no knowledge whatever of Post Office affairs, but if he sits there long enough he will learn a good deal about Post Office administration.
The hon. Gentleman who referred to a charge of 6d. for money orders may or may not be correct, but it should be possible to strike an average charge for all denominations of postal and money orders. I do not think that the present duality of procedure should be allowed to continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) had a good deal to say about Government Departments and the contribution they make, or do not make, to the finances of the Post Office on account of the charges they incur for postal, telephonic and telegraphic services.
It appears to me that the system which has obtained during the last few years of Government Departments not paying for postal, telephonic and telegraphic services is a direct incentive to extravagance. It seems to me that if the Ministry of Supply—I only quote that Ministry as one example; I am not striking at my right hon. Friend who is only one of many Ministers in this administration—or any one of its officials is able to put through an indeterminate number of long distance telephone calls from London to an undefined number of contractors or others in the north of England or any other part of the country——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been very patient with the hon. Gentleman, but if he continues to be irrelevant I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but several hon. Members have alluded to the question of the costs incurred by Government Departments, and they were not ruled out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but I think there is a limit.

Mr. Nabarro: The Amendment refers to a financial system with a view to accounting on a commercial basis. It is the Government Departments who are at present not contributing to this proper commercial basis for the conduct of Post Office affairs.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have had to stop the hon. Gentleman so often from going beyond the Bill that I am really getting tired of it.

Mr. Nabarro: I shall conclude by saying that the present system is an incentive to extravagance on the part of Government Departments and that what in commercial circles is generally known as budgetary control over all costs incurred by an undertaking should certainly be applied to Government Departments in order that a proper financial relation may be maintained with the affairs of the General Post Office.
I hope that the House will reject the Amendment. In my view, it has no relevancy at all to the financial considerations which have motivated the presentation of this Bill for Second Reading. I have dealt very amply with the charge in the last few words of the Amendment that this slight increase in the cost of postal orders affects most seriously the poorer section of the community. In fact, it largely affects investors in the football pools and also largely affects the commercial community. I consider that it does not affect more than 5 per cent. of those who are genuinely poor and genuinely in the lower income groups. The amount of the increase is so modest, almost infinitesimal, that there is no excuse for the purely sectional, partisan and party political approach to it by so many hon. Members opposite.
As I have said I hope the House will reject this curious Amendment and will vote unanimously in support of the proposals contained in the Bill, and presented, if I may say so with respect, so ably by my hon. Friend.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. W. Nally: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred to the existence in Kidderminster of a statue of Rowland Hill, which on one occasion was, I understand, draped in black. It is a matter of deep regret to my Socialist friends in Kidderminster that no statue of the hon. Member exists there so that it could be draped in black after the result of the next General Election, a duty which we should be happy to perform and which we should certainly fulfil.
As one who does not claim that his speeches in this House are a success, but usually bore it, I would tender a word of friendly advice to the hon. Gentleman. If he would be a little less pompous both in his attitude and his phraseology, then some of the hard facts that he deploys in his speeches would receive a better reception than they in fact get. In short, he suffers the great defect of invariably doing himself less than justice. His performance this afternoon accorded with most of the other speeches I have heard him make on this matter.
To deal with one or two of the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman, he said in his concluding sentences that, after all, there are only 5 per cent. of people who are entitled to complain about this increase. The other 95 per cent. are gamblers.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I gave way three times to him, so he can have no feeling about giving way to me now. I did not say that 95 per cent. were gamblers. I said that 95 per cent. of the users of postal orders were those who invested in football pools and the commercial community. The commercial community is, of course, a very large section of the total users of postal orders.

Mr. Nally: I have already warned the hon. Gentleman about his pomposity and I do so again now. He did not give way to me three times; he asked me for information which I was good enough to give him. The point I was making was that even if there were only 5 per cent. of the poorer classes affected by this increase, it is psychologically bad, and may in some cases be grossly unjust.
For example, it is part of the policy of the present Government, as it was of the last, to encourage people to be willing to

move from one industry to another, even if it means leaving their homes temporarily and going to live somewhere else. On my estimate, I have in my own division at least 150 workers who have been specially brought in and who send their wages home every week by postal order. The 2d., 3d., 4d. or 5d. a week may not be important in terms of money, but in these days we are dealing with psychological impact, as well as actual impact in terms of cash. Therefore, if we produce a situation where there is ½d. on this and 1d. on that, week after week, and month after month, the cumulative effect of this process is bound to be disastrous for the nation as a whole.
In some cases these small increases are unavoidable. In this case they are not. I am prepared to accept that in certain instances there may have to be this or that increase, but on the Second Reading of this Bill we are discussing an increase which we on this side of the House, as we state clearly in our Amendment, believe to be financially unnecessary and demonstrably unjust in its impact; that is to say, it cannot be justified at all in terms of normal, commercial bookkeeping, of which the hon. Member for Kidderminster was so admirable an exponent in this House when his party were in opposition. He has adopted a different kind of book-keeping now that his party are in power—a well-known course which sometimes rightly leads to more serious consequences when practised outside than when it is practised in this House.
I invite the Assistant Postmaster-General to reply precisely to a serious point about this Bill which my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has put so clearly and about which I do not think there is any dispute on either side of the House. It is simply that this is a Treasury Bill and not a Post Office Bill at all. It strikes me as not unworthy of comment that, during the whole of these proceedings, we have not had the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Chamber, although his name is on this Bill. We should have liked to address certain questions to him. Indeed, if the Government had had more regard to matters of genuine information, they might well have thought it appropriate that the Financial Secretary should intervene in this debate.
This is a complete Treasury Bill designed to raise revenue, but it raises it in an entirely wrong way. If I may say so with respect, none of us in this House can pose as complete innocents in the treatment of the Post Office. I have said before in this House, and in various discussions outside, that it is an absolutely shameful and disgraceful thing that the Post Office, possibly the most efficient Post Office in the world, providing the most comprehensive range of services to meet the social requirements of the people, should have been handicapped for years past, and particularly since the beginning of the war, by the imposition upon it of unfair burdens by successive Governments, even though it may be that in some of the cases the imposition was unavoidable.
This Bill brings that sad, sorry and unfair process to a logical conclusion. If I say one sentence about this, I do not think I shall be out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This Treasury Bill relating to the Post Office embodies a form of taxation which, for good or bad reasons, it was not thought convenient to embody in the Finance Bill. That is to say, there is not a penny of the revenue that will result from this Bill that could not have been more conveniently raised, and with less injustice and hardship in other ways. There is not a penny of this money that could not have been obtained by a better, healthier financial process which would have been far fairer to the Post Office—a Post Office about which I am glad to say we have had from both sides of the House some expressions of praise which were long overdue.
I accept, of course, that the greater proportion of the postal orders sold over Post Office counters in this country are intended for use in football pool gambling.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Nally: There is no doubt about that. The hon. Member for Kidderminster was anxious to pose as a defender of the little man who, he said, is entitled to his bet. But when Sir Stafford Cripps raised the price of beer, how often did a howl go up from the other side of the House about the imposition on the little man? It is quite impossible to deploy with logic the argument which the

hon. Member deployed when one looks back at the attitude of the party opposite in years past towards things like taxation on gambling, betting and so on. When, quite rightly, a 30 per cent. tax was imposed on football pools, it was hon. Members opposite who got scared by the vast publicity campaign launched by the pool millionaires whilst we, without the Whips, remained solid in the view that if revenue had to be raised that was as good a way of doing it as any.
The Assistant Postmaster-General does not appear to have taken into account one financial consequence of this Bill. During the past two and a half to three years there has been a most interesting development in football pool traffic in that more and more bookmakers are going into the business of the fixed odds coupon. That coupon is circulated in licensed premises. In Manchester alone there are at least 80 separate firms circulating these coupons and the number is growing rapidly. In strict theory that kind of coupon is illegal. But it has the advantage that the coupon is filled in and the cash is passed over——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that to go into detail on football pools and the way they are financed is really to go beyond the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Nabarro: Could we be initiated as to what is a fixed odds coupon? Most of us do not know.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think this is the appropriate moment for that.

Mr. Nally: The hon. Member for Kidderminster is now wasting time on my serious point, which is that any increase in the price of postal orders now or during the next football pool season will increase this process whereby quite a substantial amount, growing steadily over the last two seasons, transfers itself from the straight postal order pool transaction. In the ordinary way, the postal order has to be bought and posted and has to reach the football pool firms by a certain time.
Other organisations are increasingly doing their best to secure arrangements whereby more and more betting on pools becomes a cash transaction. The Assistant Postmaster-General should go into this matter. I really ought to say and stress


that the Treasury ought to investigate it. I hope I do not speak offensively to the Assistant Postmaster-General, but he is a complete cypher here. He has had no say in this Bill at all. He is here merely to take and bear whatever criticisms may be forthcoming.
As this process of betting to which I have referred grows, more and more money will flow into organisations which certainly do not meet the requirements of the Treasury, because most of the bookmakers' runners who operate this process do not pay proper tax on their commission. This process also leads to the transfer of an X amount of money from the normal postal order practice to channels which, from the point of view of the Revenue, are completely undesirable.
I should like to make one other minor point. This Bill is badly conceived because it does not have regard to those existing sources of revenue from which the same result could be obtained with far less trouble. We are all agreed on both sides of the House that the majority of postal orders derive from football pool traffic. Surely the Post Office ought to consider what it charges the football pools for the excellent comprehensive services it gives them.
It was held to be in order when some hon. Member asked how much money in the form of postal orders was lost through dishonesty. It may not be known to hon. Members that because of the development of the football pool traffic a good deal of the work of the investigation staff of the Post Office—who are, I trust, reasonably well paid and are extremely efficient—consists of investigating circumstances which have arisen in the Post Office through the theft of postal orders and so forth.
A good deal of this work is directly devoted to investigating cases that derive directly from the services that the Post Office provides to the football pool promoters. It would have been perfectly possible for the Assistant Postmaster-General, instead of introducing this wretched little Bill, to have introduced a Bill which would have provided that in the case of that particular traffic, the pools, he should be able to make special new postal charges because of the extraordinarily efficient services that the Post Office supplies to this industry.
The Assistant Postmaster-General made a name in this House from 1945 onwards by the vigour and pugnacity of his constant attacks. It seems apparent to me that he must have undergone, possibly without knowing it, a remarkable filleting operation. Whatever backbone there was has now been taken out. I am sorry about this appalling fact. So, I notice, are the "Express" newspapers which used to have a high regard for him.
I urge him, even though he is bound hand and foot to this wretched little document, to do what I am certain would have been done by my party, because we had reached a stage where we were convinced that it had to be done. I hope that in other matters he will at least have the courage to say, as I hope any new Labour Government will, that the time has come when the Post Office should be regarded as having the dignity and prestige that it deserves and that it should not be simply used as a Department to be penalised entirely at the Treasury's convenience whenever it is felt that a little extra revenue, no matter how dubiously gained, is a desirable thing.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I wish to refer to something which I feel has been unduly emphasised by hon. Members opposite, namely, the terms of the Amendment, which lay great emphasis on the charges that were made by hon. Members opposite that this Bill is an attack on the poorer sections of the community.
Most of the speeches that have been made on this side of the House have replied to those charges, but I cannot help thinking that it is a deliberate distortion of the facts to have ignored completely the steps that were taken by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) himself when he was Postmaster-General and by his predecessors in office at different times, all of which had precisely the same effect upon the purchaser of an article or a service over the counter of the Post Office as will this Bill.
We have heard some heartrending examples of people who have moved out of one constituency into another and who like to remit their salaries or wages home to their former constituency, and will have to buy a postal order at the enhanced charge in order to do so. Most


of the people who will be in that position and who will wish to remit their wages to another area will do so by money order.
It was the right hon. Gentleman himself who, without any shame or apology and without having to face the necessity of introducing a Bill, increased the charge for money orders; and he certainly did not increase them in a modest fashion in the way that these charges are being increased under this Bill, but came to the House without preparation or apology and doubled the charges on money orders—precisely the thing which would affect most harshly those who are transferred from one area to another and wish to remit their wages home.
I draw from that argument the moral that almost everything that has been said on the other side of the House today has been said purely because no responsibility for these matters rests on the shoulders of hon. Members opposite. When they were sitting on these benches and carried responsibility, their approach to these matters was entirely different and, I would add, a good deal more honest and realistic.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: In introducing this short Bill, the Assistant Postmaster-General made a very reasonable speech. We welcome the new approach to these matters. Whatever may be said about the hon. Gentleman, there is one thing that he shares with his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and that is that he is not publicity-shy. Never a weekend passes when we do not read extracts from speeches that he has made in various parts of the country. I follow these speeches, but I have not seen one reference by the Assistant Postmaster-General, or indeed by his noble Friend, to these increases which were announced, not by the Postmaster-General but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, affecting Post Office charges.
There have been increases in the postal rates and telephone charges, and now we are discussing an increase in the poundage rate for postal orders. To the Assistant Postmaster-General I say that these increases are almost as objectionable to us as the sponsored television of which he was speaking last weekend, and I hope

that on some future occasion when he is addressing a meeting he will pay some attention to this aspect of his Department.
The Amendment deals specifically with two points—first, the question of cash accounting, and secondly, the increase in the poundage, which we deplore because we think it is legislation of a class nature. Before the war there was cash accounting in the Post Office. It was suspended in 1940, and in that year there was no cash accounting and no commercial accounting. There were just the approximate audited accounts which were normally for inter-departmental use. From 1947 onwards there has been commercial accounting.
A case can be made for commercial accounting, and I propose to put forward one or two cogent arguments why commercial accounting is desirable. First, it unquestionably saves labour—there is no doubt about that—secondly, it is reasonably accurate; and thirdly, I suppose one can say, "Why go to the trouble of all this meticulous accounting when in any case the taxpayer has to pay the charges that are made by the various Government Departments for the services which the Post Office renders them?" Those are the three main reasons in favour of commercial accounting.
But I am going to suggest that a very real case can be made against it. I regret that when the Assistant Postmaster-General introduced the Bill, he did not say he was prepared to have a look at this question of cash accounting. It is no longer a valid reason to say that labour is not available for the purpose. Indeed, it has been the policy of the Government to make redundant quite considerable numbers of civil servants. If they are not temporary civil servants, they cannot be sacked; they have to be kept on; they have a security of tenure, and it is reasonable to suppose that they could be transferred to the appropriate Departments to do this sort of work.
There is the other argument that if one has cash accounting one gets complete accuracy with regard to the accounts. The other main point is that if cash accounting is adopted it unquestionably results in considerable economy in the various Government Departments. I think that is the main argument in favour of cash accounting. It is no good saying that the labour is not available; it is, and the job can be done.
We on this side of the House are convinced—as I think are the majority of hon. Members opposite—that if this system of cash accounting were adopted, there would be a considerable economy in various Government Departments with regard to postage. Secondly, it would effect economy particularly with regard to telephones and telegrams. Those are the main arguments for and against.
I recollect that on the Finance Bill of 1948–49 the late Sir Stafford Cripps somewhat startled the House by stating that the Post Office was actually going to lose £8 million a year. There was a visible reaction among Members of the House, on whichever side they sat. That statement happened to be true, though at that time the Post Office was making a commercial surplus of £15 million. The reason for the difference was the services that were carried out by the Post Office on behalf of Government Departments.
The Assistant Postmaster-General, when speaking on 31st March this year on the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill, was quite forthcoming on this matter. He went as far as to say:
From the Post Office point of view we would like to revert to that system."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 1191.]
He was referring to the system of cash accounting. We should welcome a statement, when he replies, on whether his talks with his noble Friend the Postmaster-General and with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have resulted in any advance as far as cash accounting, instead of commercial accounting, in the Post Office is concerned.
With regard to the actual increase in the poundage, I have heard the argument made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster about the tremendously increased charges which the Post Office has to carry as a result of increased wages. That is perfectly true; but it is not a new situation. For instance, when I went into the Department early in 1947 there were something like 18 wage applications outstanding, and I well recollect my right hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wilfred Paling) saying, "You take nine and I will take nine." That situation has been operating since the end of the war.
The figure given by the Assistant Postmaster-General today with regard to

the increase in the wages and pension payments was £33 million. When he spoke on the Post Office Bill, if my memory serves me rightly, he said that it was £28 million. We readily admit that that is a tremendous amount of money to be absorbed by the Post Office, and it does put the Post Office in rather a difficult situation with regard to its charges. That was one of the reasons my right hon. Friend had to increase the printed paper rate, and that is why the Assistant Postmaster-General has had to face further rate increases since he came into power.
Now I want to look at the position with regard to postal orders. In 1952–53 it is estimated—and it is only estimated; let us be perfectly frank about that, because we have not got the commercial accounts—that there will be a deficit of £133,000. In 1951–52 there was a surplus of over £100,000 on the postal order section. As a result of the increases which are now before us, there is to be a surplus on postal orders of over £1 million, which means, as my right hon. Friend said, that 10 times more profit is to be made on postal orders than in 1951–52. That means that that section of the work of the Post Office is being used for the purposes of relieving taxation as far as the Exchequer is concerned. It cannot be justified from the operation of that particular section of Post Office work.
There is one thing which strikes any hon. Member who holds office in the Post Office, and that is its resilience. We were warned continually that we were going to be "in the red" if increases were not made. Post Office work increases roughly by 5 per cent. every year. As far as postal orders are concerned, I suggest that there will not be the deficit that the hon. Gentleman has told the House to expect.
The revenue from postal orders represented, in 1949–50, 2.8 per cent. of the total Post Office revenue. In 1950–51 it represented 3 per cent. That proves that the number of postal orders issued was rising. If one takes it in terms of quantity there was an increase in the years I have mentioned of 12 per cent. so that in the last published commercial accounts there were something like 480 million postal orders issued.
I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman arrives at the fact that the postal order section is actually losing money. I do not think it is easy to ascertain that. I suggest that it is quite a notional figure. How does one take into account the capital costs with regard to the issuing of postal orders? How does one charge up the time of the postal clerk in the issuing of postal orders? Surely we are not to be told that in every Post Office a time record is kept of the clerks and the various work they perform? It just is not done.
How does one allocate lighting, fuel and heating? Does one allocate them on a single postal order? Of course one does not. I should like the Assistant Postmaster-General to tell us how he arrives at that figure and, if the information is not available, I suggest to him in all seriousness and in a perfectly friendly manner that it would pay him to have a few conversations with his advisers on this particular question.
There is a further point. Millions of postal orders have already been supplied, and when this Bill becomes law we shall increase the poundage upon them. How is it proposed to collect the poundage? Is it to be done by postage stamps affixed to the postal orders?
As far as I can see, there is an omission from the Bill, although there may be a very good reason for it. There is no reference to the postal order of the 40s. denomination, the poundage on which, if the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is correct, is to be increased from 4d. to 6d. Is the omission due to the fact that no Parliamentary sanction is required? We should like to know, because it is an interesting point.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster suggested that every section of Post Office work should, as far as possible, be self-balancing. I understand that point of view, but we on this side of the House reject it, as, I think, will hon. Members opposite after reflection. If we leave out the telegraph service, as my right hon. Friend said, we look at it this way. It is a reasonable analogy in this connection to compare the Post Office with a transport undertaking. London Transport do not expect every route to pay. Some do, and some do not. We do not have varying charges for different routes; we have

a common denominator. It is entirely wrong to set about trying to organise the Post Office in such a way that every type of work which it performs is self-balancing.
Quite frankly, we regard the postal order as the poor man's cheque. That is our case. I cannot equal the eloquence of my right hon. Friend in his description of the effect this increase will have upon the poor, but I do not think it is sufficiently realised that in working-class life the postal order serves exactly the same purpose as does the cheque for the higher and middle income groups. It seems to us unfair and entirely unreasonable that this section of the Post Office, which is losing very little money, even on the figures which have been given—figures which, in my submission, are entirely notional—should have to bear this increase in poundage.
One cannot suggest that a person buying an article and sending a postal order in payment, or a person having a flutter on the football pools, should have to pay the same as someone engaged in a transaction for thousands of pounds in the commercial world which he carries out by a banking account. The increase is wrong and, in our submission, entirely unfair. Those are the reasons why we put down the reasoned Amendment and why we shall divide the House.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I hope I may have the leave of the House to reply to some of the points raised. May I first of all deal with one or two of the factual points? The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) asked me what loss there had been through stolen postal orders. The figures are £2,800 out of a total turnover of £144 million—a figure which, I am glad to say, is going down; I do not mean that the number of postal orders is going down, for it is increasing, but that the losses are going down.
The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) and the hon. Member for Huntingdon asked me why the 40s. postal order had not been included. The reason is that Section 24 of the Post Office Act, 1908, as amended by the Post Office Act, 1935, gives the Postmaster-General authority to issue postal orders without any limit as to their


amount. The limit of poundage of 2d. applied only to those postal orders under 21s., which, again, comes under the Amendment Act. From that arises this rather curious position, as I said at the beginning of the debate—that we have to come here and present a Bill to the House on the question of increasing the poundage from 2d. to 3d. Poundage is fixed by Post Office Regulations under Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1935.
The third point raised concerned the vexed question of whether Government Departments should be charged for the telephone, telegraph and postal services rendered to them. Several hon. Members raised the point, among them the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) and the right hon. Member for Caerphilly. I have nothing to add to what I said to the House the other day—that we regard this as not only a very desirable thing in itself but as something at which we shall aim very quickly. In fact, I had hoped that today I should have been able to make some sort of announcement on that subject.
I think it is desirable, and the whole House, I think, regards it as desirable, but I am bound to point out that it would not make any direct difference to Post Office revenue. The fact is that Government Departments now have to pay a credit to the Post Office commercial accounts for the services which we render to them. It is a credit which we take as a result of a sample of the traffic. This change would not mean that we, as a Post Office, would get more revenue. In fact, temporarily we might get a little less. That is not the reason we want to make the change.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think that if the hon. Member reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that he has made a slip of the tongue. Departments do not pay a credit, as he said; the Post Office takes the credit.

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; we do not get any money, but there is a credit in the commercial accounts. This change is a desirable thing in itself, for at present these services which we render to Government Departments do not have to be accounted for in their Estimates and, therefore, there is nothing other than a very high sense of public duty which calls any Govern-

ment Department to be very careful about these things. I am sure my predecessors would agree with me on this—that if a Minister saw in his annual Estimates a sum of £3 million or £4 million or £5 million in charges to the Post Office, and he knew that had to come out of the total sum voted to him by the House, a good deal more attention would be given to these matters than is given at present.
But it will not make any direct difference to our financial position. The advantage will be in this, that if there is less use of Post Office facilities by Government Departments at a time when we are called upon, or compelled, to restrict the public use of telephones, in particular, there may be more facilities available to the public. I hope that at last I have succeeded in getting this point across. I know that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly made a very gallant attempt to do so, but it is extraordinary to see articles in the Press, as well as to read speeches made in the House, which clearly do not appreciate that elementary point.
I want to turn to the words of the Amendment. When I first read them on the Order Paper, I must confess that I did not think the right hon. Gentleman was quite serious. I thought that perhaps some of his hon. Friends might have been serious about it, but I thought he knew far too much about the Post Office and its organisation to lend his name at any rate to some parts of the Amendment. I notice that it starts by talking about
…examining the organisation of the Post Office financial system with a view to providing for accounting on a commercial basis.
We did not hear very much about reexamining the Post Office when the right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment. In fact, I do not quite know what he meant by it. There was vague reference to the Bridgeman Committee. As I said the other day, I personally would not have the least objection to the Post Office being examined by the Bridgeman or any other type of committee.
I know that there are hon. Members who think the Post Office should be run as an ordinary nationalised industry. That may be a good idea or it may be a bad one. It would mean having no Postmaster-General, nor Assistant Postmaster-General, in this House. Certainly


the House would lose a lot of the intimate control it has over the Post Office at the present time.
Any hon. Member can put down Parliamentary Questions to ask why the inkwells in the Post Office in Victoria Street are never full of ink—as though they are not—and I have to answer, but when it comes to asking about a nationalised industry, like the railways or electricity, we cannot come down to anything like that sort of investigation. It may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing, but I ask hon. Gentlemen who make pleas for the re-organisation of the Post Office to realise the lines upon which such a reorganisation might take place. It may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing, but it would certainly mean that the House would lose a good deal of the control it has today.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair. Some of us have been advocating this for some considerable time, but we have not suggested that the Post Office should be like an ordinary nationalised undertaking. We have always taken the view that there should still be full Parliamentary accountability, and equally we say that the Post Office should be examined by a committee similar to the Bridgeman Committee to this effect, that its liability to the State should be defined, it should be able to use its own revenue for the purpose of building up its reserves, and in all that way be on a commercial basis.

Mr. Gammans: Yes, I do not object to the definition the right hon. Gentleman gives; but I do not want to be involved today in an argument about the future status of the Post Office, for if it ought to be discussed I do not think it should be on a Bill which raises the poundage on postal orders merely by a halfpenny: it is a larger and much more important question. For historical reasons I am sure that everyone who has had anything to do with the Post Office would share my view that, because of its long and honoured history, I for one should be sorry to see its present status materially altered.
Then the Amendment goes on to the suggestion that these increases cannot be justified on commercial grounds. Then we had the full run of arguments I have

heard so often. The right hon. Gentleman said, "The voice is the voice of the Post Office but the hand is the hand of the Treasury." Some hon. Gentlemen said I was the "stooge" of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there were compliments of that sort, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) went so far as to say that I was fleecing the public on behalf of the Chancellor. That all sounds very nice, but what, in fact, does it amount to?
Let me take the right hon. Gentleman's point. He objects, apparently, to the present Government helping the Chancellor to the tune of £8 million—that is, if we get it. If we are fleecing the public to the tune of £8 million this year, then what does the House say about the surplus of £12 million which the right hon. Gentleman paid over to the last Chancellor of the Exchequer, or—to go back a few years—about the £20 million which was paid in 1947 and 1948?
If a surplus of £8 million to be paid to the Chancellor is wrong this year, then how much more wrong was it to have £20 million handed over a few years ago? I do not seem to remember any protest coming from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on that occasion. Do not let us quibble about it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley, who spoke last, I think admitted the point. I do not want to misquote him, but I think he said that there ought to be a surplus to the Post Office. Well, in this current year the surplus of the Post Office is smaller than for 25 years, with the exception of two particular years.
Therefore, I do not quite see how we can reconcile this argument that I am a stooge who is to go on collecting money unwillingly for the Chancellor, on the one hand, with the right hon. Gentleman's collecting twice that much, with the acclaim of his party, on the other. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) suggested that when I was in opposition I was most belligerent but had now become a timid mouse who was giving the Chancellor a small piece of cheese. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways.
That is why I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who knows all about the Post Office finances, who knows of the £8 million surplus we have this


year, and knows that it is a pretty small surplus, should try to pretend that there is something outrageous about this. I looked up a previous speech of his when he was the Postmaster-General. I really must read it. I know that it is a poor form of Parliamentary fun to read one another's speeches, but he made a so much better speech in suggesting this increase last year than I was able to make this year—so much more convincing, because he got away with it so much more easily. He said:
I have reached the conclusion—very reluctantly"—
I also said "very reluctantly"—
that the time has come when the Post Office finances, faced with a steep rise in costs in practically all directions, must be fortified by an increase in several of our tariffs. The House may be surprised at this, in view of the considerable attention frequently given to the surplus exhibited by our commercial accounts, but there is, I fear, no escape from the conclusion that without this support the surplus for 1951–52 would fall to a very small figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 207.]
This year it has fallen below zero, and if these increases were justified last year, when there was still a commercial surplus, I find it very difficult to understand how the right hon. Gentleman this year, when we have an actual prospective deficit, can possibly object in the words he has used.

Mr. Hobson: Yes, but my right hon. Friend announced the increases himself, and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that constitutes an entirely different set of circumstances. In the second place—and this is a point the hon. Gentleman may be coming to, and I do not want to anticipate his reply—what are the increases in the costs of issuing postal orders?

Mr. Gammans: I will deal with the last point first. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who said he had always regarded Post Office revenue as a whole—with some surpluses here and some deficits there. There is an appalling deficit on the telegraphs, which is getting worse, as it is in every country in the world, and it has got to be carried by something; but we have a very nice surplus on inland correspondence of nearly £10 million, and a surplus on telephones—and, thank heaven, we have—and although I admit we are raising by these tariffs a larger sum than is

necessary to wipe out that deficit, that is simply because we regard the Post Office revenue as a whole.
Let me now come to the last part of the Amendment, which says that the Bill
…places an unfair burden on the poorer sections of the community.
I think the right hon. Gentleman had some difficulty in putting that across. I think he said it with his tongue in his cheek. After all, 56 per cent. of all postal orders issued are issued for football pools. Have we reached the stage when the Revenue should subsidise people who invest in football pools? That is a fantastic suggestion. The value of the average pool postal order is 3s. 11d., not 2s. 6d. as the hon. Member for Bilston said, and 56 per cent. of all the postal orders are for football pools.
A very convincing case can be made by suggesting that in putting this poundage of ½d.—which is all we are talking about—on the value of the average postal order we are hitting the poorer sections of the population very hard. If we are talking about hitting the poorer sections of the population, what about the right hon. Gentleman's efforts last year. It was he who put up the call-box charge from 2d. to 3d., and who uses the call-boxes if it not the poorer sections of the population who cannot afford to have telephones of their own? It was he who put up the cost of telegrams from 1s. to 1s. 6d., and if it is not the poorer sections who have to use telegrams in an emergency, who is it?
I can imagine the sort of sob-stuff story the right hon. Gentleman would have told us if he had been attacking those charges last year. Think of it. We should have heard all about people on their death beds and their relations being summoned in the middle of the night by using either a call-box or a telegram. What a story we should have heard. We should have heard sad stories of people in adversity who had to send telegrams or to use the call-boxes. Then we should have heard all about the people who had telephones of their own being helped at the expense of those who had to use the call-boxes.
What a yarn it would have been. What tears he would have shed. There was not a word from him about all that today. Today we have heard about raising the


poundage on postal orders by ½d. for people, most of whom will use those postal orders for football pools. If I may say so, I think the right hon. Gentleman could have found a much more convincing story than that.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) did not speak in this debate. I have no doubt there was a very good reason why he did not do so. I can quite understand his reticence, because I suggest that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly has not really faced up to the reason for these increases. The main reason for these increases, as well as the other increases, is that wages have gone up. What he and his hon. Friends will be doing tonight when they go into the Lobby against this Bill is objecting to those wage increases. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] But yes. It is no good hon. Members opposite lending themselves to a course of action and then objecting to the inevitable consequences of that action.
That is what is happening tonight. We have a wage increase of £33 million in two years out of a total increase of £50 million, and then the right hon. Gentleman comes here tonight and objects to the inevitable consequences arising out of it. By voting against this Bill, he and his hon. Friends are objecting to the wage increases themselves.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Nonsense.

Mr. Gammans: But that is exactly what is happening. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Droylsden would

speak this afternoon and, if he objected to this Bill, say "I do not think these men ought to have had that money"; or, if he was not prepared to do that, allow this Bill to go through as the inevitable consequence of those wage increases.

I notice that there has been some reference to telephone charges. It is very significant that the Opposition did not pray against the increased telephone charges. I wish they had done so.

Mr. Hobson: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. It was not the fault of the Opposition that we were unable to pray against the increased telephone charges. The hon. Gentleman knows the reason full well.

Mr. Gammans: If it is the earlier charges to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, the Opposition had 40 days in which to pray against the telephone charge increases in the Budget. They did not do so; I do not blame them. They realised then that if they prayed against those telephone charges they would be praying against the wage increases which made those increased charges inevitable. I suggest that if the Opposition go into the Lobby now against this Bill, what they are doing is protesting against the increases in wages and salaries and pension commitments that made this Bill inevitable.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 252.

Division No. 181.]
AYES
[6.56 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Birch, Nigel
Cole, Norman


Alport, C. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Colegate, W. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Black, C. W.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Amery, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bossom, A. C
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bowen, E. R.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Arbuthnot, John
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cranborne, Viscount


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Braine, B. R.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crouch, R. F.


Baker, P. A. D.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullard, D. G.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Banks, Col. C.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Davidson, Viscountess


Barber, A. P. L.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Deedes, W. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Burden, F. F. A.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Baxter, A. B.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A (Saffron Walden)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Carson, Hon. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cary, Sir Robert
Donner, P. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Channon, H.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Drewe, G.


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)




Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Duthie, W. S.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robertson, Sir David


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Robson-Brown, W.


Erroll, F. J
Linstead, H. N.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fell, A.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Rt Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Russell, R. S.


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fort, R.
Low, A. R. W.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Gage, C. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Scott, R. Donald


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McAdden, S. J.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Gammans, L. D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Mackeson, Brig. H R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
McKibbin, A. J.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Godber, J. B.
MeKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Soames, Capt. C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maclay, Hon. John
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gough, C. F. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Speir, R. M.


Gower, H. R,
MacLeod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stevens, G. P.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Steward, W A. (Woolwich, W.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harden, J. R. E.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hare, Hon. J. H
Manningham-Buller, Sir R E.
Storey, S.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Markham, Major S. F.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marples, A. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Summers, G. S.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Sutcliffe, H.


Hay, John
Maudling, R.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L C
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Heath, Edward
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Teeling, W


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mellor, Sir John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Here[...]d)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Thomas, P J. M. (Conway)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Monckton, Rt. Hon, Sir Walter
Thompson Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn Peter (Monmouth)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thorntan-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Tiney, John


Holland-Martin, C J
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hollis, M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Turner, H. F. L


Holt, A. F.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Turton, R. H.


Hope, Lord John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hopkinson, Henry
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Horobin, I. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Vosper, D. F.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Odey, G. W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hurd, A. R.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Watkinson, H. A.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'grh W.)
Partridge, E.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wellwood, W.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Rt Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Jennings, R.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon E.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wills, G.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Trure)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wood, Hon. R.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Profumo, J. D.
York, C.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Raikes, H. V.



Lambton, Viscount
Redmayne, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Oakshott.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Renton, D. L. M.





NOES


Adams, Richard
Bellenger, Rt Hon. F. J.
Bowden, H. W.


Albu, A. H.
Bence, C. R.
Bowles, F. G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Benn, Wedgwood
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Benson, G.
Brockway, A. F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Beswick, F.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Bing, G. H. C.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Ayles, W. H
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blenkinsop, A.
Burke, W. A.


Baird, J.
Blyton, W. R.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Boardman, H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Bartley, P.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G.
Callaghan, L. J.







Carmichael, J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reeves, J.


Champion, A. J
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Chapman, W. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.


Clunie, J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Richards, R.


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Coldrick, W.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collick, P. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rodgers, George (Kensington, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Royle, C.


Cullen, Mrs. A
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Daines, P.
Kenyon, C.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
King, Dr. H. M
Short, E. W


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Kinley, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Deer, G.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Simmons, C J. (Brierley Hill)


Delargy, H. J
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Slater, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Driberg, T. E. N
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Snow, J. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R W.


Edelman, M.
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McGovern, J.
Steele, T.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ewart, R.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fernyhough, E.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Field, W. J
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt Hon E


Finch, H. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Swingler, S. T.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield, E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Follick, M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Foot, M. M.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Forman, J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Glanville, James
Messer, F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Gooch, E. G.
Mikardo, Ian
Timmons, J


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P.C.
Mitchison, G. R
Tomlinson, Rt Hon G


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Monslow, W.
Tomney, F


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.
Turner-Samuels, M


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morley, R.
Viant, S P.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, H. W


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, S.)
Watkins, T E


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Weitzman, D.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Moyle, A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mulley, F. W
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hannan, W.
Murray, J. D
West, D. G.


Hardy, E. A.
Nally, W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E Flint)


Hargreaves, A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Hastings, S.
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)


Hayman, F. H.
Orbach, M.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Oswald, T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hewitson, Capt. M
Pargiter. G. A
Williams, Rt Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.
Williams, W R. (Droylsden)


Holman, P.
Pearson, A
Williams, W T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Peart, T. F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Houghton, Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Hoy, J. H.
Poole, C. C.
Wyatt, W. L


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Popplewell, E.
Yates, V F


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hynd, A. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr Wigg.

Bill read a Second time.


Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Redmayne.]


Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BROADCASTING (LICENCE AND AGREEMENT)

7.7 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I beg to move,
That the Licence and Agreement, dated 12th June, 1952, between Her Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
As most hon. Members are aware, the reason why the Licence and Agreement are laid before the House for an affirmative Resolution is not because of the activities of the B.B.C. here at home, in particular, but because they also relate to overseas broadcasts, and also because the Licence and Agreement create a charge on public funds and extend over a period of years. It is for these reasons that the Licence falls within Standing Orders Nos. 87 and 88. I imagine that the House would not want me to read out those Standing Orders, but I am prepared to do so if necessary.
The Charter itself is given under the Royal prerogative and does not require the approval of the House. For that reason, it would not be proper for me to refer to the terms of the Charter. The Licence and Agreement do not differ fundamentally from the Licence under which the B.B.C. is now working, but there are one or two important changes, and it would be proper for me to spend most of my time speaking about them.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House the week before last, the Licence will run for 10 years. This differs in point of time both from the recommendations of the Beveridge Committee and also from the proposals of the late Government. I think from the debate on the White Paper that this period of 10 years meets with general acceptance. This will be found in Clause 2.
In the existing Licence the Postmaster-General has an all-embracing power of direction over television; in the new Licence there is no such provision, which means that the Government formally extends to television the independence which the B.B.C. has traditionally enjoyed in programme matters. This means that the B.B.C. is in the same position so far as both television and sound broadcasting are concerned.
In Clause 3 the Postmaster-General has the power to require the B.B.C, after consultation, to establish very high frequency sound and television stations; that is, those working above 30 megacycles per second. This is a new provision for sound broadcasting, and it follows the Government's intention to seek advice from a committee on v.h.f. sound, as well as television, broadcasting. This committee is the advisory committee which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) mentioned in the debate on the White Paper. As I told him then, the only reason why the committee had not been called during the past year was that we felt that there was not much point in calling it until questions of principle and policy had been settled. But from now on it will be called and it will be responsible for advising not only on television but on very high frequency sound as well.
In Clause 11 there is a slight alteration regarding the employment of aliens. The Postmaster-General will continue to specify the general conditions under which aliens can be employed but, provided they are not subject to restriction as to the length of their stay in this country or the nature of the work that they can take up, the Corporation will have discretion from now on to employ them in established capacities.
Clause 14 relates to commercial broadcasting by the B.B.C. It forbids such broadcasts except with the permission of the Postmaster-General and is exactly like the Clause now in force. The Government have no intention, as stated in the White Paper, of departing from this policy and, what is more, they would be most unwilling to see any change in the future on the part of the B.B.C. itself.
Incidentally, it is this Clause which enables the B.B.C. to announce the names and descriptions of performers and also to acknowledge by whose permission they appear. For example, the point is often raised why at the end of a programme a statement is made that Mr. So-and-so is appearing at a certain West End theatre. It is this Clause which enables it to be done, and it is also this Clause which enables the B.B.C. to give the numbers and the makers of gramophone records which they broadcast.
Clause 15 (2) lays on the B.B.C. the obligation to broadcast an impartial


account by professional reporters of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, and I am sure all hon. Members will agree when I say that here the B.B.C. has done a really first-class job of work, not only from the point of view of strict impartiality but also as a first-class piece of reporting. Many millions of people who have neither the time nor the inclination to read HANSARD, or perhaps even to read the daily newspapers, will testify that it is in this way that they have some idea of what is happening in the House. There is only one criticism that I have ever heard of "Today in Parliament," and that is that many people think it ought to be five minutes longer. In some legislatures the proceedings are broadcast direct, but that is something which has never appealed to us in this country and I do not imagine that it ever will.
In Clause 15 (3) there are one or two minor alterations. The first is that the power which the Government now have to require the B.B.C. to broadcast an announcement is now extended to cover television. We think that is reasonable —I think everybody does—in view of the importance and the popularity of television.
Another change compared with the present Licence is that a Government Department will no longer be able to require the B.B.C. to broadcast what is termed "other matter" except in an emergency. The B.B.C. will, of course, continue to be at liberty to say that either an announcement or "other matter" is being transmitted at the request of a Government Department.
There is also a new provision regarding the Government veto on B.B.C. transmissions, whether in television or sound. Under the present Licence the Government can forbid the B.B.C. to say that a veto has been imposed. Under the new Licence the B.B.C. will be at liberty to announce at its discretion whether or not a veto has been imposed. The Government take the view that the Governors are a responsible body and that this discretion can safely be left with them.
I had better say a word about Clause 15 (5), which deals with external broadcasts. These used to be called the Overseas Services but at the request of the B.B.C. they will now be known as the

External Services. These are the services which are financed not out of the licence revenue but out of a grant-in-aid. The programmes themselves, like the Home Service programmes, are left to the B.B.C, but the scope, the languages and the extent of the broadcasts are decided by certain Government Departments whom the B.B.C. is required to consult and from whom the B.B.C. has to get information regarding Government policies, so that the programmes can be prepared in the national interest. The Departments which the B.B.C. has to consult are the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. In theory, the B.B.C. is also required to consult the three Service Departments, but at present those Departments are not exercising their powers in this direction.
It is the same Clause which deals with the monitoring and transcription services, which are also financed through a grant-in-aid. The transcription services provide recordings of B.B.C. programmes in English and in other languages either specially prepared for sending abroad or else taken from the ordinary B.B.C. services. Last year several thousand discs and tape recordings were sent to broadcasting stations all over the world, and these form a very important part of the broadcast programmes of many overseas stations.
The monitoring service, as the name implies, is charged with the task of listening to foreign broadcasts from all over the world throughout the whole 24 hours, and the B.B.C. itself, as well as many Government Departments, derives most valuable information from it. These services have, of course, been going on for some time, but under this Clause the overseas Departments will have a more formal responsibility than has so far existed.
Clause 17 is the interesting Clause which deals with finance for the Home services. To begin with, the Post Office gets a sum equivalent to 7½ per cent. of the gross revenue received from the licences in order to pay for the services which the Post Office itself provides. Those services are the cost of licensing, the cost of investigating interference affecting broadcast reception, and also the cost of dealing with licence evasion. The Post Office percentage has varied over the years. Before the war it was even higher than it is now.
Under the current Licence it started at 6 per cent. but was increased to 7½ per cent. in 1950. So far as the 7½ per cent. is concerned, this part of the Post Office does not set out to make a profit and does not, in fact, make one.
At this point I might say a word about the extent of the evasion of licences, as this, naturally, affects the amount of money which the B.B.C. have at their disposal. We have no reason to suppose that the amount of wilful evasion is excessive, but we find that a number of television viewers do not take out their licences as soon as they get their sets installed. As the House is aware, the Post Office a few months ago introduced some detector vans as an experiment, and this experiment is proving extremely successful. We propose to extend it all over the country. It is a commentary on human nature that the very appearance of the van itself in a particular area means that the number of television licences shoots up.
We still find that many motorists, even now, do not realise that a separate licence is required if a radio set is fitted to their car. There is no doubt that there is quite a serious loss of revenue in this direction. As soon as we announced, a few months ago, that special attention was to be paid to motorists, the number of licences for radio sets in motor cars shot up by about 30,000.
So far as the B.B.C.'s revenue is concerned, for the first three years they will receive 85 per cent., that is, after the deductions of the Post Office allowance. That is the figure which was proposed by the last Government, and in the present state of the national finances we regard it as reasonable.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a form of indirect taxation on listeners?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman likes to look at it that way I suppose it is. The B.B.C. revenue is making a contribution to the Exchequer. There is nothing to prevent the B.B.C. for asking, at any time during the three years, for this percentage to be increased if they can make out a case for such an increase. I might summarise the financial position by saying that for every pound paid in licence fees, the B.B.C. gets 15s. 9d., the Treasury 2s. 9d. and the Post Office the balance of 1s. 6d.
Those are the chief Clauses in the Licence which call for comment, but before I sit down perhaps I might say a word about future developments in both sound and television which we hope to see in operation during the lifetime of this Licence. The three developments are: first, the development of very high frequency sound here at home; second, television in colour; and, third, the reception of television programmes from abroad.
For sound broadcasting we are not likely to get any more medium wavelengths. In fact, as the people in Northern Ireland and on the North-East coast know only too well, we have not got enough wavelengths already, and these parts of the kingdom have to share the same wavelengths, to their mutual dislike. As I have said on more than one occasion, there is only one way out of the difficulty and that is the introduction of very high frequency. I hope that it will fall to my lot to assist in dissolving a very unhappy and unwelcome marriage.
Very high frequency transmissions will gradually—I want to stress the word "gradually"—become the normal method of transmission for most parts of the country. This should mean better reception and freedom from interference both at home and abroad for the vast majority of listeners. I do not want to give the impression that the B.B.C. will be able tomorrow to cover the country by v.h.f. transmitters. I must make that clear so that people now owning or thinking of buying ordinary sets will not think these sets will be of no use. In any case, quite apart from the fact that v.h.f. will gradually become the normal method of transmission at home, the medium wave transmission will continue for a very long time, because there are some parts of the country where medium wave transmission is more suitable than v.h.f.

Mr. Joseph Reeves: Would that mean the installation of new receiving sets in those parts of the country covered by v.h.f.?

Mr. Gammans: I hope I have made it clear that when v.h.f. comes it is not proposed to take away the medium wave stations. The last impression I want to give either to the radio trade or the public is that the present medium wave set is out of date or is likely to be, otherwise we should be giving a false impression.


I hope I have dealt adequately with the point raised by the hon. Member. The Advisory Committee on Television, whose functions are now to be extended to include very high frequency, will be asked for advice on the best method of introducing high frequency sound broadcasting, including the form of modulation which is to be used on which there will be consultations with the radio industry.
I want to say a word about colour. It is quite clearly a most desirable development in television, and will enhance beyond words the artistic value of television. Let me give two examples. Imagine Trooping the Colour in all its splendour or the English countryside in Spring. I only regret that we are not likely to have television in colour before the Coronation next year. Technical advances have been made, however, and some systems of televising in colour are, in fact, already available.
We should realise, however, that this is an extremely expensive business, and it is interesting to note that the United States, whose resources are far greater than ours are likely to be, have had to postpone the commercial exploitation of television in colour because of the Korean war. For that reason the House would not expect me to give any indication whatever as to when the B.B.C. are likely to be able to operate colour television in this country.
There is one other point I should like to clear up and it is the same as that put by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) when he interrupted me, though in a different way. When colour television does come to this country it does not follow necessarily that the present sets, which only receive black and white pictures, will be out of date. It is technically possible to broadcast in such a way that those who have sets which pick up black and white pictures only can continue to do so, while those who have the new set which picks up in colour can also pick up the same programme in colour. I want to make that point clear; otherwise, people, thinking television in colour is only round the corner, will defer buying a set because they think it might be useless when colour comes.
As to reception from abroad, the question here is whether sufficient funds and

resources can be set aside for the purpose. That is the main difficulty. As the House knows, there is to be an interesting experiment next month of a television programme from France. The French are using a different system, with a larger number of lines, and, therefore, it is necessary to convert their programmes by means of a convertor. To span the distance between London and Paris the B.B.C. have to set up a number of temporary intermediary stations so that the programmes can get across the Channel. It will be a very interesting experiment indeed, and, I think, will give some forecast of what is to come.
The prospect, which is also mentioned from time to time, of television being sent across the Atlantic, possibly via Newfoundland and Iceland is, I am told, quite possible technically, but a vast amount of capital would be required. Until we, and even the Americans, can devote more of our resources from rearmament, we are unlikely to see much in the way of results in that direction in the near future.
I hope I have covered to the satisfaction of the House those features of the Licence which call for comment. I think it a fair summary to say that the powers of the Postmaster-General in the technical field are widened a little, to take account of the developments which are expected during the licence term. On the other hand, the Corporation are placed in a position of greater independence respecting television and Government veto and the power to require the Corporation to broadcast at the request of Government Departments.
I think that is a fair summary of the new Licence, compared with the one which is now in force. I trust that the new Licence, which in other respects is similar to that granted in 1946, will commend itself to both sides of the House and that it will be approved.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In the speech we have just heard from the Assistant Postmaster-General, the hon. Gentleman stuck pretty closely to his brief. It was an admirable, although not an exhilarating, brief—but the hon. Gentleman has had a very hard day. It is the third speech he has made in the course of the day. He stuck to the very


narrow limits of the Licence, but he gave us some valuable information. On the whole, the things he did not say were more interesting than the things that he talked about.
We have to keep within the terms of the Licence. The Assistant Postmaster-General said that it would not be proper for him to refer in any way to the terms of the Charter. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at Clause 24 (1, b)of the Licence, where you will find it stated that the Postmaster-General may revoke the Licence
in case of any breach, non-observance or non-performance by or on the part of the Corporation of any of the provisions or conditions contained in the Royal Charter of the Corporation.
It therefore seems that the provisions of the Charter, or some of them, are made an integral part of the Licence. By that paragraph they are made just as much a condition of the continuance of the Licence as are the terms of the Charter itself.
I want to use that fact to make one or two points and to ask questions about matters which are obscure, bur which are, by that Clause, laid upon the B.B.C. as conditions of the continuance of the Licence.

Mr. Speaker: It might be of assistance to the House if I said a word or two here about the limits of the discussion, as I see them. I desire to ask the assistance of the House in keeping this debate within order, as it is not going to be easy. The paragraph to which the right hon. Member has just referred, saying that the Licence may be revoked if a condition laid down in the Charter is broken, does not allow the whole of the Charter to come up for discussion. That would be an absurd conclusion. The utmost I can say in advance is that it would permit such references to the Charter as are necessary to make an argument which is relevant to the Licence intelligible.
I hope that is clear. On general grounds, this Motion deals mostly with the operation of the B.B.C. and not with its constitution. That is the broad distinction. Therefore, on this Licence, the references to such matters as we discussed the other day on the White Paper, which was much wider, as to the method of appointing Governors, the constitution of

regional councils, and so on, would be out of order. They are proper for the Charter itself and for a wider debate such as we then had.
The House will see that there is a reference to sponsoring in this Licence, but that only amounts to this, that the B.B.C. is itself prohibited by Clause 14 from broadcasting for other persons for money. The wider question that we have discussed, of persons other than the B.B.C. broadcasting, would involve another Licence and not the document before us. That issue is out of order. I do not want to take up the time of the House myself, but I thought that might be of assistance.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your very clear Ruling. I was going to deal with one or two matters in the Charter which concerned the operation of the B.B.C, which you said would be in order. One of these questions is on page 12 of the Licence and concerns the right of the national Broadcasting Councils to employ staff. It seems to be a condition laid upon the B.B.C. which, if they fail to fulfil, may lead to the revocation of their Licence, but it is none the less very obscure.
I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General with whom contracts of service are to be concluded by the people who are to be employed by the national Broadcasting Councils. Are the contracts of service to be with the B.B.C. or with the national Broadcasting Councils? It is very important that they should be with the B.B.C. Otherwise, there will not be the mobility of staff for promotion. Secondly, and even more important, the B.B.C. would not be able to carry out another obligation which is laid upon them, to negotiate agreements with trade unions on behalf of the people employed by the Corporation. If there were people in the broadcasting services, but not employed by the Corporation, the Corporation would not be able to discharge this much more important obligation.
Perhaps I might say a word or two about this important obligation, which is laid upon the B.B.C, of trade union recognition, as it concerns the operation of the Corporation. It is a duty and a condition of their Licence. I am now referring to page 14 of the Charter. It is a condition to which we attach the


greatest importance and we want to insist rigidly upon the fulfilment of this condition of the Licence. Clause 16 of the Charter is the same as the one which was agreed to in the 1946 Charter, but it was then new. It was changed in 1946 from the previous Charter granted in 1936. Moreover, the words used are identical with the words in the relevant Sections of Nationalisation Statutes, like the Civil Aviation Act.
From that we can deduce that it was intended in 1946 that the B.B.C. should behave in a different way from previously in regard to negotiation of agreements with trade unions, that it should, broadly speaking, act like a national board. That change was intended in 1946; we are now in 1952, and very little progress has been made in that direction. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will bear in mind that the validity of the Licence depends upon the B.B.C.'s carrying out this condition properly.
I come to the Licence itself. I am sorry that the word "overseas" has been dropped in favour of "external." The other is a very much better word, but there seems to be some politics in it which I do not understand.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. asked for it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We do not have to do everything that the B.B.C. asks for. The Postmaster-General is not the servant of the B.B.C.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Northern Ireland, the Isle of Wight, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are all not external, although overseas?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Whenever I use the word "overseas" I have looked a little bit beyond the Isle of Wight or Northern Ireland. I have always looked on Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pitman: I thought that "external" was a much more accurate description of something overseas.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is accurate and ugly. It is an unfortunate word. There is a new provision in the Licence on page 9 by which the B.B.C. for the first time is laid under an obligation to

monitor overseas services. It no longer, as previously, has a choice in this matter. The B.B.C. monitors largely for the sake of other Departments of State and there has been a rapid increase in recent years in the demand of those other Departments, and it is likely to increase still further.
Of course, the charge for monitoring has to be met by the B.B.C. out of the grant-in-aid. In other words the B.B.C. is increasingly devoting part of its grant to monitoring services not intended for its own use but for the use of other Departments of State. If there is an extra burden laid on the B.B.C. by order of the Postmaster-General, the cost of that extra burden ought to be met outside the grant-in-aid. It is a considerable sum.

Mr. John Profumo: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but did I understand him to say that the B.B.C. monitoring services are not intended for their use?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I said they were largely intended for the use of other Departments of State. Of course the B.B.C. would have a monitoring service in any case, but if it were not servicing anyone else, the cost would be smaller. The present cost is £450,000 a year and well over half is for other Departments and not for the B.B.C.
We now come to what is our real duty, which is to discuss the Licence as a whole, because we have to decide our attitude to the Licence as a whole at the end of the day. We are not allowed to amend it, only to approve or reject it. Of course, we want a Licence to the B.B.C. and, on the face of it, I admit that this Licence is the same as previous Licences, but it is, in fact, quite a new creature. It is what is called a nonexclusive Licence. The Government have dragged that word into the Royal Charter for the first time so that we shall be told what is the document we have in front of us. It is described as a nonexclusive Licence. [An HON. MEMBER: "It always was."] It has never been so described before.
Under the Charter the B.B.C. is only allowed to apply for a non-exclusive Licence, so the fact that this is a nonexclusive Licence is a condition precedent to the whole Licence, and one cannot understand the Licence at all unless one


takes that fact into account. Although it is the same in form and might deceive anyone who does not make a comparison, it is a Licence of a new kind. It is designed to fit into a system of sponsored television.
In this context there are three points in the Licence to which one would not normally pay attention but which are now very important, and all of which relate to the problem of sponsorship and none of which can be sensibly discussed without some passing reference to the background of this document. The first is on page 10 of the Licence where it says that the B.B.C. is to be paid 85 per cent, of all licence fees. We were always in favour of that but in different conditions from now.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking, as he said, to widen the scope of the debate on the ground that the term "nonexclusive Licence" appears in the Charter. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is merely declaratory of the position that has always existed. The Licence has always been a non-exclusive one, and therefore the fact that it merely declares an existing condition cannot, I submit, mean that it is possible to widen the debate and discuss the matters outside it which you mentioned earlier.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, the position has always been that the Postmaster-General could issue a licence to anyone but, in fact, has never done so. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman should exclude the discussion of sponsored television.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a document with a new description. In the 25 years in which we have been dealing with these things, it has never been so described. Surely in that case we are within our rights to inquire as to the exact meaning of this new description; to ask whether it is a new thing or not.

Mr. Profumo: We have been told that.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We have been told one thing in one answer. I want to ask a lot more questions. Here we have a new description and we are entitled to assume that the Government are

not unnecessarily lavish in their words and therefore do not describe something in new terms unless it is something new.
Before I was interrupted, I was trying to show that there were three points in the Licence which led one on to a brief glance at the problem of sponsorshire. The first is on page 10, where there is a reference to 85 per cent. The situation is entirely new, because the Government are proposing to expose the B.B.C. to most bitter and unscrupulous competition and therefore they should not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why unscrupulous?"] If I may be allowed to say so, I will explain it later on. Therefore, the Government have not the same sort of case to maintain this 85 per cent. If the Government are to be consistent and logical, they should enable the B.B.C. to equip itself to meet this competition by giving it the whole 100 per cent. It would be quite a different thing if this were an old-fashioned Charter and not a non-exclusive Charter.
Then there is the definition on page 4 of the Licence of a sponsored programme. It will no doubt be said that the same words have been used here as have appeared always before. Quite true, but there is a new significance. Before, this was something that we were to be spared; now it is something that is to be thrust upon us. Therefore, we have to scrutinise this definition with much more care.
Thirdly, there is the reference which you yourself, Mr. Speaker, drew to our attention, that the B.B.C. is prohibited from itself sending out sponsored programmes. It seems to me impossible to consider whether that is right or not unless we discuss whether other sponsored programmes should be permitted. It was done in the 1946 debate——

Mr. Speaker: This is difficult, but the document which we have before us is a licence to the B.B.C. If it had been a licence to some other person to engage in competition with the B.B.C., we would have had that document before us and the argument of the right hon. Gentleman would have been relevant to that. As, however, we are dealing only with a licence to the B.B.C, it would be wrong to permit a discussion on a hypothetical state of affairs when we have not before us a document to that effect.

Mr. William Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you note the reference on page 13, in Clause 24 (2):
Nothing in this Clause contained shall be deemed to prejudice or affect any statutory power of the Postmaster-General.
Also the title of this document refers to an agreement "Between Her Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation." Surely we are entitled thereby to consider the other powers of the Postmaster-General in regard to broadcasting?

Mr. Profumo: They are no different.

Mr. Speaker: In the present case we are dealing merely with the exercise of this power in granting a licence to the B.B.C.

Mr. Ross: But does not the fact that the title of the Agreement refers to a nonexclusive Licence in itself give him power to license other broadcasts?

Mr. Profumo: He had it before.

Mr. Ross: If he had it before, there is no reason why we cannot discuss it tonight.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the words make much difference. It has always been in the power of the Postmaster-General to license anybody. However, as far as the House knows at the moment from the document which he has presented to us, he is granting a licence to the B.B.C., not to anybody else. I do not wish in any way to confine the debate within undue limits, but I hope the House will take the sense of what I have said into its mind because it would not be proper for me to allow the debate to range over too wide an area.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, in previous debates, of which we have had a number for some years, there has generally been a fairly wide discussion. Sometimes they were taken on a Post Office Vote but on the last occasion the debate was taken on the Licence. That debate ranged over a number of topics, because the Licence is really the foundation of the Charter. There is also an allusion to the intentions of the Government. We have here a Licence which is designed to implement a policy which has already been set out. Therefore, we have before

us, quite clearly, the kind of policy for which this Licence is intended. I submit, therefore, that when we have unusual, new phraseology introduced into this Licence, we are entitled to consider that in the light of the professed policy of the Government.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Further to the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made, I have checked that point because I anticipated that some reference might be made to it. If I may, with respect, correct the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of the last debate on the Licence, there was a Ruling of your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, directly on the point. Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown said:
The hon. Gentleman is now talking about commercial radio, but we are discussing the Agreement between the Government and the British Broadcasting Corporation, and he must confine himself to that.
A short time later, having, if I may say so with respect, a little difficulty in restraining the exuberance of hon. Members who wished to widen the debate, your predecessor said:
The Motion before the House is to approve the Licence and Agreement. It is not a Supply Day on the B.B.C. Subjects outside the Agreement seem to me to be going far too wide.
His deputy, the Chairman of Ways and Means, said:
The question before the House is as to whether the Licence and Agreement shall be approved. The hon. Gentleman appears to be going into a good deal of detail as to various complaints."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 1231, 1250, 1257.]
The Deputy-Chairman of Committees, the late Mr. Beaumont, ruled to the same effect. That was a debate on exactly the same point as this.

Mr. Attlee: That debate could have lasted only a very short time if it had been confined strictly to that, but in actual practice, as I recall it, it ranged over all kinds of things—programmes and the rest. There is an entirely new point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted. The fact was that commercial broadcasting was ruled out on that occasion because it was not in issue. Now it has been deliberately put in issue by the Government.

Mr. Gordon Walker: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to columns 1240–1246 of that debate, just after the Ruling given by your predecessor, when Mr. McAllister made quite a considerable


speech on this very problem of monopoly and commercial broadcasting and was not called to order. There were other matters, like the discussion of the requisition of a house by the Ministry of Works, which was drawn to Mr. Speaker's attention at the time, which were not ruled out of order. I hope that we shall have as much latitude as was then allowed.

Mr. Speaker: I read that debate myself this morning——

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Further to the point of order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the definition, on page 4 of the White Paper, of "sponsored programme"? That is a phrase and an element which is quite special and new to the Licence. Therefore, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said seems to me to be quite irrelevant, because in the previous debate this phrase and this element did not occur. Therefore, it was perfectly logical that it could not then be discussed.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman has just told us, with the frankness that we would expect, that that phrase did occur in the previous Licence.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Sponsorship was not in the Licence.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It was part of the previous Licence.

Mr. Speaker: Whether it was or was not part of the previous Licence, it is quite clear from the context of the Licence that that refers to the B.B.C. broadcasting matters for payment by other persons, and not to the wider question of sponsorship as we understand it, namely, other people engaging in competition.
I have read today the debate to which reference has been made and I was aware of the Rulings of my predecessor in this matter, which are in line with my own. If occasionally the debate strayed beyond those limits, I think there was a considerable effort made by the Chair to restrain it within the limits. I would ask hon. Members to keep their remarks relevant to this Licence as far as they can.
I repeat that matters outside the Licence which it may be necessary to refer to in the course of discussion in order to render intelligible an argument

directed to the Licence, would be in order. I think that if hon. Members work within these broad limits we shall have a useful discussion.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I will do my utmost, Mr. Speaker, to keep my remarks within the limits of what is necessary to make the Licence itself intelligible—not arguments upon it, but the Licence itself. I should, therefore, like to go on from where I was interrupted, with the question of our attitude to the Licence as a whole, which it is our duty to decide upon tonight.
When we regard the Licence as a whole, we do not at all want to get ourselves into the position of saying that there are no objections to or defects in monopoly; we certainly would not go very far in the direction of the rather Olympian attitude of the Corporation. What we say is that on balance the existing system, which the Government by this Licence now want to amend greatly, is far the best for this country, and that a non-exclusive Licence of this type would be the worst of all solutions. A number of solutions have been put forward—and this is the worst of all. It would debase and alter the whole tradition on which we have built up our broadcasting.
The Government, in producing a nonexclusive Licence, have altogether ignored—indeed, they have not even mentioned—the very powerful arguments in the Beveridge Report against a nonexclusive Licence. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side are very fond of justifying this non-exclusive Licence idea by quoting other Commonwealth countries and their practice, where both systems compete side by side, as the Government intend to have in this country. We have had just as powerful a condemnation of this in Canada as we have had in this country by the Beveridge Report.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me where in the Licence the word "non-exclusive" appears? I have not been able to find it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If the hon. Member had done me the kindness to listen to my speech, I started by referring to a section of the Licence which incorporates part of the Charter. I then look


at the Charter and see the part of it that has thereby to be incorporated—namely, the objects of the Corporation—and I find that the Corporation is in future only able to ask for a non-exclusive Licence. That is, therefore, a condition of the Licence, and that is how it gets into the Licence by a side wind.
We have as weighty a condemnation of this dual system, this non-exclusive Licence system, in Canada as we have had in this country in the Beveridge Report. There has been the very famous Massey Report, produced by Mr. Vincent Massey, who is now Governor-General of Canada.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On a point of order. I submit, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman is not abiding by the Ruling of your predecessor in the Chair. He is quite deliberately introducing a general argument on sponsoring. Mr. Speaker ruled that he could only include such references to the Charter as would make the Licence intelligible, and said that we could not have a general debate on sponsoring. I submit, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is breaking the Ruling of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I have heard the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to observe it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman afraid of in having a full discussion?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not afraid of anything. The House has had a full discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The matter is not really a matter of full discussion. It is a different matter at the moment—it is a matter of orderly discussion.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I will, naturally, do my best to keep within the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker. I observe, however, that the other side seem to be extraordinarily shy of discussing the matter, and I do not doubt that people outside the House will draw the proper conclusion. The party opposite are using rather gagging methods to try to stop this being

discussed at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am not referring to the Chair—naturally not.
May I explain our attitude and why we are against a non-exclusive Licence? This is a non-exclusive Licence and we have to decide our attitude. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not interrupt me for a moment, I wish to explain why we are against a non-exclusive Licence. We think that a unique medium like broadcasting should be a public service, and a non-exclusive Licence means that it need not be a public service. Only if we have an exclusive Licence for broadcasting can we see that it is used to raise the standards of taste and education in the country. That is the only way to avoid a debasement of standards which would come if we had a non-exclusive Licence.
For more than a quarter of a century we have had an exclusive Licence, a system on which we were all agreed, and which was started under a Conservative Government. Now, for the first time in a quarter of a century, we have this departure, this new creature of a non-exclusive Licence, and the thing has been brought into public controversy and party conflict for the first time.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do protest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. A Ruling has been given and the right hon. Gentleman is directing his speech to a direct argument on sponsoring or not. That has been ruled out of order, and I protest against the flouting of a decision in this way, deliberately.

Mr. Attlee: I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will support Mr. Speaker's Ruling and not allow any threats from the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I would sooner be called to order by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, than by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is a non-exclusive Licence?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is a nonexclusive Licence, as every previous Licence has been a non-exclusive Licence. Of course it is and, as Mr. Speaker just said when the right hon. Gentleman directed that point, the Postmaster-General has always had the power to issue as many licences as he liked and it was with that well in mind that Mr. Speaker gave his Ruling.

Mr. Gordon Walker: May I ask whether this is the first occasion on which it has been so described?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is the first time the words have been in, but not the first time that it has been a non-exclusive Licence. Every Licence has been a non-exclusive Licence.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman uses new words, he must allow us also to have views on the meanings of those words. He cannot use words, define them and rule out everyone else's question about the meaning of those new words. He has gone out of his way to use new words and we are entitled to probe to see if there is anything new in this new word. He uses new words and tries to dragoon us on their interpretation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman says that I have tried to dragoon the House. I only quoted what Mr. Speaker said, and if Mr. Speaker said the position was as I have described it—and I am quoting him—I cannot be dragooning the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I appeal to all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. Mr. Speaker has made his Ruling clear on a very difficult matter. It is a very difficult line to draw, but I hope that all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will try to observe that line, however difficult it is, and will observe the Ruling which Mr. Speaker gave.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We now have one thing clear. It is a non-exclusive Licence; we have been told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I can assure him that the previous Licence for which we were responsible was an exclusive Licence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. I can assure him that it was so.

Mr. Profumo: I am certain the right hon. Gentleman is not attempting to mislead the House but is trying to indicate the views of hon. Members opposite. I understand from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I understood from your predecessor, that a discussion of anything outside the Licence, except in broad terms, is out of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the previous Licence did not give the Postmaster-General the opportunity to issue licences

to people who wanted them? If not, this is irrelevant to the argument.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am suggesting no such thing. I was saying that our previous Licence was an exclusive Licence in fact and the present Licence is a nonexclusive Licence in fact. We must be allowed to express our views on this nonexclusive Licence in fact, and I suggest that it would be an abuse of the rules of order to try to narrow the matter much more narrowly than Mr. Speaker did in his Ruling a little time ago.
The Government, naturally, have deployed every argument they can in favour of a non-exclusive Licence and let themselves in for grotesque paradoxes and contradictions. It is said that one great justification for a non-exclusive Licence is that the Press does not have a monopoly control, and why should the B.B.C.? We have the Lord Chancellor bringing in Milton to justify the non-exclusive Licence.
We say that the broadcasting medium is a unique medium because it is the only one which goes into the home. It is quite unlike the Press or any other medium and no one has suggested a board of control for the Press and limitations against politics and religion in the Press. That gives the whole game away, because the advocates of this non-exclusive Licence admit that there is an inherent tendency towards degeneration in this. Otherwise, they would not set up a board of control.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Is not the British Board of Film Censors a form of control, and what about the Lord Chamberlain's control over theatres?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A large number of hon. Members want to take part in this debate and it would be a great convenience to all concerned if there were fewer interruptions.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I shall content myself by saying that I presume the hon. Member means that there should be a pre-censorship for television as there is for films and theatres, as he has indicated the exact analogy. Censorship cannot stop degeneration. We have had experience of that in the United States, Canada and elsewhere. It cannot stop it because we cannot have pre-censorship; we have to catch up with it afterwards. There will be competing T.V. studios and it is intended, as a result of this Licence, to


seek sponsors and viewers at all costs. Our children all over the country will be exposed to new dangers.
There is a vital question which, I suggest, 'is completely in order and to which we must have an answer before we decide our attitude to this non-exclusive Licence. When is the non-exclusive Licence likely to become a reality by the creation of other licences? This is a non-exclusive Licence, potentially; when is it to become actual? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have noticed an article in "The Times" the other day on this matter speaking of the
growing suspicion that the public has yet to be told what the Cabinet has got at the back of its mind—or minds.
When is this non-exclusiveness to become a reality? The Postmaster-General told us that it would not be before five new low-powered television stations have been built. The Lord Chancellor said that it would be several years. The Assistant Postmaster-General said the other day:
it is the hope of the Government that it will be possible before long that this experiment can actually be started. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 329.]
Who speaks for the Government? Does "before long" means the same as "several years"? I think we are entitled, before we decide what to do about this non-exclusive Licence, to have a categorical answer to the question whether the Postmaster-General, in another place, was representing the policy of the Government when he said that other licences would not be given before five new low-powered television stations had been set up. That does not correspond altogether with the words used by the Assistant Postmaster-General. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he can go that far within the rules of order, to give an answer to this very important question.
The answer to this question of when the non-exclusivity of this Licence is likely to become an issue in relation to this very Licence is all the more crucial because the vultures are already gathering to pick at what they hope will be the carcase of British broadcasting. I should like to say to this new company that has been formed, which is closely associated with a number of interests which are very vocal in this House, that they will be very wise to think twice

before they do anything rash. They are actuated by commercial considerations, and they would be wise to hesitate before they rush into a matter of deep political controversy and division. I see that this company have so far ventured only £100 in this matter. That is very wise of them. They would be wise to wait; these would-be early birds might find the worm very elusive.
They should remember that, however fast this Government may contrive to go, they will not be able to do this thing for several years, and they will be out of office long before that. We shall certainly not carry on the policy implied in this non-exclusive Licence. The Government have no mandate whatever for doing this. There was no hint of it when they were in opposition or during the election campaign, and it would be monstrous to make this non-exclusive Licence into a reality without a prior election.
It would be against all the traditions of our democracy to make a change like this, which it is now clear, through the Press, is dividing our country deeply, without a fresh election. Let no one doubt that this non-exclusive Licence is a matter about which we feel deeply. We will fight the whole principle of it in Parliament and in the country, and we are sure that we have the backing of the great majority of the people in this matter. We will do our utmost to preserve and maintain the traditional methods that have given us the best broadcasting system in the world, and we reserve our full right to frustrate this retrograde innovation of a non-exclusive Licence.
We shall, therefore, when the end of the debate comes, which I am afraid has been greatly delayed by interruptions, have to divide the House, not because we are against a Licence as such but because we are against, and bitterly and deeply against, a non-exclusive Licence. As we cannot, under the rules of order, move any Amendment, we have no choice, if we wish to express our deeply felt views on the matter, but to divide the House at the end of the debate.

8.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: This debate seems to be getting heated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) became almost hysterical


with anger about a proposal which he himself said could not possibly come into existence for several years. He did his best to transfix my right hon. and learned Friend as to when it was to happen and then answered his own question to his entire satisfaction. He might have discussed the matter before us with a little more equanimity.
We are discussing a question of great importance, and we have, fortunately, quite a long time in which to do it. I am not referring to the more vehement speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) at week-ends because he has never been noticeably over-restrained on any of these matters. Of course, we sympathise with him. He is fighting for his life. His lot is pretty hard——

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I have not been demoted from the position of an ex-Minister of the party to which I belong to a bench similar to that which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now occupies.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is remarkable for an ex-Foreign Secretary to say anything like that. We shall wait with interest to see if, in any future Government, the right hon. Gentleman is again entrusted with those seals of office which he so signally mishandled in the last one.
We are discussing a matter of more general importance than the various forms of hysteria of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are discussing a Licence which is brought before us, and a matter about which many of us on both sides of the House feel fairly keenly. I hope that no one will suggest that I have any connection with any commercial company promoting sponsored broadcasting or television.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The right hon. and gallant Member is being misled.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It may be, but I have done a great deal more broadcasting than has the hon. Gentleman, and for many more years. I have a great deal more acquaintance than he has with practical broadcasting.
The general position of the Government is strengthened by the fact that in many cases the service given at present by the B.B.C. is not satisfactory. I

was amazed to hear the general chorus of adulation which was going on all round the House about the wonderful system of broadcasting which we have. I was staggered to hear Member after Member say that everybody had the choice of at least three programmes and that many have the choice of seven.
Let me mention my own part of the country. For what are we paying licence fees? We cannot get television, of course; we cannot get the Third Programme; we cannot get the Scottish programme. We hear all this talk about whether we are to have Beethoven interrupted by advertisements for pills, but it is not a matter of us having Beethoven. We cannot even get the bagpipes.
We are told that we have the best system in the world. The system on the North-East coast is a disgrace. The system of broadcasting on either side of the Scottish Border is a disgrace. If it had been the subject of a little healthy competition that disgrace would have been removed long before now. The right hon. Member for Smethwick spoke at length about the report which had been made by Mr. Vincent Massey about broadcasting in Canada. Let him look at a report much nearer home—the report made by an ex-Governor-General of the B.B.C, Sir Frederick Ogilvie, in which he said that it would be a very good thing if there was competition; that it would be for the good of the B.B.C.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite must not assume this high and mighty moral tone as if everybody opposed to them was a vulture—I think that was the cheerful phrase of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I was not referring to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when I used the word "vulture." I was referring to those companies outside that are gathering round to profit from the policy of the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the memory of the right hon. Gentleman has betrayed him. If he will look in HANSARD tomorrow he will see that not only did he refer to people outside as vultures, but to their very close association with many hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is what he said. If he did not, he should have done.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member wishes to repeat and underline the phrase. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to take this high moral attitude in view of the many eminent people who have given evidence to the contrary. I go no further than an ex-Director-General of the B.B.C., himself a man of the highest moral character—Sir Frederick Ogilvie.
We do not have the system which we ought to have, at any rate in the parts of the country from which I come. The irontight and airtight system which the right hon. Gentleman is advocating will bring disaster to the B.B.C. He for the first time is demanding a new system. He is going to divide the House in favour of a departure from 25 years of practice in this country. He is going to divide the House in favour of an exclusive Charter and against the non-exclusive rights of the Postmaster-General which he has enjoyed ever since broadcasting came into existence in this country.
Hon. Members opposite are the people who are demanding the innovation. They are the people who wish to make a change. They have no right to demand that in the name of their high moral principles. They can say that they would like a monopoly; they do. They can say that they object to competition; they do. Those are the views of hon. Members opposite but they are not the views of hon. Members on this side of the House. Those views are not held by many people in this country, and we find that the argument for an airtight monopoly is not as strong as the right hon. Gentleman would wish us to believe. It is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not believe in this absolutely airtight monopoly. He will find advocates on his own side.
The right hon. Gentleman will find a remarkable article by Lord Reith in last week's "Observer," demanding that there should be a monopoly and saying, "What is the matter with a monopoly if it is justly and considerately exercised?" That is the argument of tyrants in all ages—what is the matter with a monopoly, if the tyrant is to judge how the monopoly shall be exercised. The argument in this article against the proposals for some departure from monopoly and for some form of extension of licence was refuted, oddly enough, by an article in another

part of the paper praising the extraordinarily fine work of the Glyndebournne opera, which had been brought into existence by one of the same vultures which the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to denounce.
The argument that all progress has been made by public bodies and never by any body operating privately cannot be borne out in fact. That very argument is today breaking down before the right hon. Gentleman's eyes. The introduction of the new feature of v.h.f. into broadcasting will mean that it will be as easy and as simple to have a small broadcasting station with a local range as it is to have a local newspaper. Hon. Members opposite are already making use of small commercial v.h.f. stations. Hon. Members only have to go out and summon a taxi. The taxi will very likely be summoned from a v.h.f. station, and I have never heard that it has been used for disseminating pornography, as hon. Members would wish us to believe.
These new decentralisations are absolutely necessary, and where they are particularly necessary is in these new national developments of broadcasting which are about to take place. We are not now discussing the airtight monopoly. That has failed; that is already on its way out. What we are discussing are the conditions under which the airtight monopoly is to be liquidated in the future. Not one hon. Member opposite dares to suggest for a moment that the process of 100 per cent. centralisation in Portland Place, which is what is asked for by those extremists on the opposite side of the House, would be supported either in Scotland or in Wales.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in favour of commercial competition? I can quite see a case for competition between public bodies, but is he in favour of commercial competition?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: First of all, I would say that I am opposed to the monopoly. If I carry the right hon. Gentleman with me on that I have taken him a long way. Secondly, I would say that the Press and the opera promoters have certainly done nothing to demand that they should be ruled out as untouchable in any kind of promotion of either entertainment or education for


the people of this country. As I say, the Glyndebourne opera itself is one of the outstanding examples of a man of wealth devoting his wealth to elevating the public taste.
Hon. Members opposite suggest that all men of great wealth are vultures— [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is the argument they have brought forward, that they wish to imply that such people feed upon carrion. That is the sort of argument that is being submitted. I say that in Scotland and in Wales decentralisation will have to take place. Not a single Member representing a constituency in Scotland or Wales would deny that that is so.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Decentralisation for the purpose of fulfilling the needs of particular areas by the public broadcasting service is an entirely different matter from that which we are discussing, namely, the breaking down of the public monopoly of the B.B.C. for the benefit of private enterprise and the flood of private advertisements which will follow.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What the scheme demands is that there should be a 100 per cent. decentralisation in Portland Place, who feel just as keenly against decentralisation in Scotland or Wales to public bodies as to commercial companies.

Mr. Thomas: Is it not a fact that under the present B.B.C. set-up one has one's regional services, which are locally autonomous to a very large extent to the selection of their programmes? There is none of the tyrranist monopoly complex at Broadcasting House. That is just a figment of the right hon. and gallant Member's imagination. He is distorting the whole picture.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Hon. Members opposite are for 100 per cent. centralisation. We know that very well. There is not a penny spent which is controlled by the executive in Scotland or Wales. If one reads or listens to the speeches or reads the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite, they are all against effective devolution—which is what we want—not only of authority over programmes but the Executive power to spend money, which is one of the absolute touchstones of the truth.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not only want de-centralisation; he wants a sponsored programme. The two things are quite different.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There should be a non-exclusive Licence—I am sticking closely to the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Smethwick in his arguments—and not an exclusive Licence. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would divide the House tonight on the question of an exclusive Licence—a 100 per cent. control in Portland Place of all broadcasting in this country for ever.

Mr. Turner Samuels: Mr. Turner Samuels rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have had enough difficulty over long speeches. I do not propose to embark on this matter at any length.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On a point of order. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman want a sponsored programme or not?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is not a point of order. I want a non-exclusive Licence, but the right hon. Member is going into the Lobby for an exclusive Licence.
I think that there should be even more devolution to the regions than is proposed under this scheme. I might myself divide against this scheme, but for different reasons than those of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think this goes far enough in the provision of devolution and the breaking up of the monopoly. I look forward to the day when there is a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation, when there is a Radio Scotland, and we shall be able to provide our own programmes in our own country.
I am opposed to the high degree of centralisation for which the right hon. Gentleman asked us to go into the Lobby in his support tonight. He says that the airtight monopoly came into existence because of certain technical conditions, but those conditions no longer exist. We have plenty of time. For years to come it will not be possible to make any


changes. There will be plenty of time for the changes to take place and to be fully discussed on many occasions in this House.
We ought now to be discussing seriously, and not as some form of taboo, whether there can be other provisions for broadcasting in this country except that provided from Portland Place. It is time we were discussing these things, and when morals are introduced, we have at least as much right as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that we resent it, that we throw it back again and that there is no more reason to proclaim us as vultures than there is for us to proclaim them.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I am listening to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument with interest and I have sympathy with some parts of it, but I am not clear about what he suggests for Scotland. Does he suggest that Scotland should deprive herself of the right to draw upon British programmes', with their great resources?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that no such provision was in my mind, or could be in my mind. After all, if Russia can beam her programmes upon Scotland, it is not impossible for us to pick up English programmes. I have never heard it suggested that we were going to set up jamming stations in Scotland to prevent the English broadcasting programmes from being heard there, or that when Tommy Handley was on the air, the sound of bubbling water would pour forth on Scottish radio sets to prevent him from being heard.
We say that there is room for all, that there is more room on the ether than there has been, that advantage should be taken of it, and that there is a place both for an increase in the national system and an increase in the privately promoted system, too. We say that these things should be discussed without adopting any "holier than thou" attitude, without introducing the attitude of the untouchables—"these are the Brahmins." The reason for this caste system has long since passed. We say that we must consider when and where and how the monopoly which has existed up to now shall be

modified. That should be discussed in a realistic spirit, and until it is discussed in a realistic spirit we shall make no progress in these debates.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The right hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has said that he would welcome the setting up of a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation, but there is no proposal in the Licence before the House to grant a licence to a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot remove the fears of hon. Gentlemen on these benches that behind all these non-committal terms, such as "nonexclusive Licence" and the other phraseology used in the Licence and in the White Paper that preceded it, if the Government have their way we are going to get sponsored television, financed by commercial interests, and we are going to get our entertainment by courtesy of the brewers and our education by courtesy of the bookmakers. Quite categorically, we want neither entertainment nor education at the hands of such interests. If the proposal were to set up a Scottish or any other kind of broadcasting corporation on the traditional lines of the B.B.C., the attitude on these benches would be very different.
I hope the House will permit me to turn to the particular vultures which I want to criticise, and they are the Treasury and Her Majesty's Government. The depredations which I wish to criticise come in paragraph 17 of the Licence. I am surprised how tolerant the House has been, over the years, of the imposition of a form of indirect taxation on the listeners in the provision whereby only a percentage of the net licence revenue is handed over to the B.B.C.
This Licence proposes to continue for three years the provision that only 85 per cent. of the net licence revenue shall be paid to the B.B.C. The net licence revenue consists of the gross takings, less a deduction made by the Post Office, as the Minister said, of 7½per cent. for administrative charge. I am surprised at the tolerance of the House at this proposal. Over the years all Governments have done the same thing—except a Liberal Government that have not yet


had the opportunity of following the evil course of Governments in this particular matter.
At present, if a member of the public desires to become a listener to broadcast programmes he has to buy a receiving set, and on that pays Purchase Tax. He pays the Purchase Tax to buy the set and then has to pay another tax to use it, and this other tax at the present time is 15 per cent. of the wireless receiving set fee of 20s. which he pays through the Post Office. So that there is a tax of 3s. a year for the use of the set for which he has had to pay Purchase Tax.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest the slightest reason why broadcasting should not pay the duty which is imposed on any other form of entertainment?

Mr. Houghton: What I am about to submit to the House is that if we are to impose taxes on listening they should have their proper place in the Budget proposals and be incorporated in the Finance Bill in the usual way. This is a deception upon the listening public. I refer the House to the Report of the Broadcasting Committee of 1949. which, in paragraph 419, stated:
The first Committee of Inquiry, in 1923, presented the view that, while no part of the cost of home broadcasting ought to fall on the general taxpayer, the Government should not seek to make a net profit out of the licence fees.
It went on to say:
Successive Governments have accepted the first half of this proposition, but not the second half.
In its recommendation in paragraph 420 the Committee said:
Whether it should be 100 per cent., or something less than 100 per cent., depends upon whether it is thought right to retain part of the licence fee paid by listeners and viewers as a contribution towards the general expenses of the Government, as has been done until the present year.
It went on to say, in confirmation of the view I have just expressed:
This is a fiscal issue. …
I plead that fiscal matters should have their proper place in the business of this House, and not be hidden away in a Licence to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
I am anxious not to take up more time than necessary in view of the delay that

has already occurred, but I must say that, aggravating this particular proposal, is the astonishing thing that the British Broadcasting Corporation is liable to Income Tax on that part of the Licence revenue which it sets aside in reserve, and since 1st January, 1947, the B.B.C. has paid over £5 million in ordinary Income Tax. That is not a matter which I can discuss at length in the criticism which I am making of Clause 17 of the proposed Licence, but it certainly does aggravate the financial position of the B.B.C, and adds to the indirect taxation which listeners are bearing when they are paying their normal licence fee to the Post Office.

Mr. Pitman: That does not in any way differ from the reserves of companies trading, which similarly have to bear tax before they become reserves.

Mr. Houghton: I appreciate that, but one could argue whether, in fact, the B.B.C. is a trading concern, bearing in mind that the only revenue it has is that provided out of public moneys collected by the Government and assigned to the B.B.C. under the terms of the Licence.

Mr. John Rodgers: Surely other sources of revenue are available to the B.B.C, such as advertising revenue from the "Radio Times," the "Listener," and the like.

Mr. Houghton: The taxation of such items as that would be a different matter.
In my judgment—and the matter is referred to in some detail in Appendix H of the Report—this is another form of indirect taxation upon the listening public. It amounts to this. If the full licence revenue were paid to the B.B.C. and the position of the B.B.C. liability to direct taxation were also cleared up, the probability is that the licence fee could be reduced. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot reduce the cost of living, they might have a shot at reducing the cost of listening. That would be a great boon and benefit to many very poor folk, especially old-age pensioners who feel that they are paying very heavily indeed out of meagre resources for their licence fee.
I hope that this matter will receive the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that in future we shall not have included in the Licence things


which are more suitable and proper for discussion on fiscal matters. On that criticism of the Licence I will now give way to other hon. Members who are, no doubt, most anxious to contribute to the debate.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: The phrase "exclusive Licence" and "non-exclusive Licence" has been brought into this debate from the Charter, and it is really on that, and on that alone, that the Opposition are dividing. They wish not only to alter the situation as it has been in the past, but to do it by making it positively clear that it shall be an exclusive Licence; and they are doing that at a time when there are considerable additional facilities for broadcasting and television.
I want to answer the question of the hon. Member who posed the dilemma that if there was to be an extention by additional programmes it would have to be necessarily by sponsorship. That just is not true. With the development of very-high-frequency it would be possible for, say, the Theatre Royal at Bath, on a quite short radius, to send out the play of a repertory theatre being played that week in Bath.
It would be possible for a listener to pay direct to the Theatre Royal for a connection through the telephone wire to his set, which would unscramble what was being sent over the air and give the listener in Bath the opportunity of enjoying a programme direct, without any sponsorship whatsoever, by a direct payment for it, just the same as he pays direct for it if he goes to the theatre.
I wish to emphasise what was said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kenvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), that we are reaching an era of local broadcasting comparable to the local newspaper. It is possible to have 100 new wavelengths scattered over the country operated on at the same time, just as there are 100 local papers in addition to the big national papers. We want, I think rightly, to provide the means for such an addition.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) introduced the question of Milton. It seems to me that broadcasting today is

in the same position that the printing press was in in the time of Milton. In the early days the amount of paper and print available was very small, but now we have seen how it has become enormous. To begin with, there were very few radio wavelengths, but in future they will be considerable.
The odium with which the exclusive Licence is saddled is this, in my opinion: not that the B.B.C. are stopping any particular view from being put, but they are in a position to stop, and will be stopping, additional views being put. As a publisher, I do not in any way dissent from Her Majesty's Stationery Office publishing books, but Her Majesty's Stationery Office does not prevent other books from being published. When we plead for a non-exclusive Licence, we are saying that the time has come in the broadcasting business when what has happened in the realm of print ought to happen in the realm of the ether.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour, in the name of Milton, of the exclusion of politics and religion from the things which the Government propose?

Mr. Pitman: I accept the position that until this new freedom has been tried out we have to give it considerable restriction, but, in my view, speaking individually, I would not be sorry to see as great a freedom given to all these broadcasting units as is given to the printers and publishers in this country.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Does the hon. Gentleman eventually envisage the commercial sponsoring of political and religious programmes?

Mr. Pitman: I am a publisher and I publish all sorts of things——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think it would be in order for the hon. Member to try to answer that question.

Mr. Pitman: I am sorry, because I should have liked to answer that question, but since the question of exclusive or non-exclusive is in the Licence, and is out of order, I would rather get on to the issue, which I am sure is in order, and that is the terms which the B.B.C. have been given under this Licence.
It seems to me that under this Licence the B.B.C. are entitled themselves to go in for sponsored television and, if they like, for sponsored sound broadcasting, but I do not think that really arises. As I read Clause 14, it seems to me to be possible for the B.B.C. to get off to a flying start and themselves to put up sponsored television ahead of anybody else. I will deal with that in a minute and develop my point, if I may.
It seems to me that the television programmes have, in descending order, three types of external programmes in which they excel. First, we get the great national events like the Coronation which is coming. The B.B.C. will put that over on television, and I am sure that it will be a magnificent event. Equally, they get the opportunity of putting over programmes such as Wimbledon and Henley, and those are cases in which there are so many people wanting to go to Wimbledon and so many people who would not go to Henley unless they were going there in any case, that the broadcasting on television of these two programmes does not deduct from the revenue of the promoters of them more than the fee that the B.B.C. can afford to pay.
Do not let hon. Members run away from the fact that even when they run a whist drive, the gate of that whist drive is the very essence of the success of that social unit in their community. I would say that in the case of Henley or Wimbledon or the Cup Final or any of these great social, community events the receipt of the gate is a fundamental, important and perfectly correct issue. The real trouble arises in the case of the Cup Final, the Grand National or a big boxing tournament where, undoubtedly, the broadcasting immensely reduces the gate and makes it almost impossible to conduct such a social and great occasion. So there must be some means whereby, if the public generally are to continue to enjoy these events on television, adequate payments should be made possible.
I would say that within the terms of the existing Licence it is perfectly reasonable for the B.B.C. to go to, say, the Gillette Razor Company and say, "If you like to pay Mrs. Topham whatever fee you like, we are entitled, under Clause 14— because it does not include a payment of money from the Gillette Razor Company to us—to pay our usual fee to Mrs.

Topham and so broadcast the Grand National as ' any performance given in public' and it does not preclude us from announcing the place of the performance and from acknowledging any permission granted."

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that Clause 14 permits that? Is not the effect of Clause 14 clearly this? First of all, it says categorically that there is not to be the right to emit a sponsored programme by the B.B.C. at all. Then it goes on to limit and to define what the B.B.C. can do, and the definition excludes such matters as those to which the hon. Member is now specifically referring. It is as clear as daylight.

Mr. Pitman: I would always defer to any hon. and learned Member on a matter of law, and I naturally defer to the hon. and learned Member, but I should say that if a fee of £100—I suppose that is what the B.B.C. would pay for the Grand National—was paid to Mrs. Topham there would be the right to broadcast the Grand National, there having been an arrangement between Mrs. Topham and the Gillette Razor Company.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the concluding words of the Clause? It is clear that it is strictly and specifically limited to the announcement over the B.B.C, without payment or any fee whatsoever, of the date of some concert or theatrical performance, nothing more and nothing less.

Mr. Pitman: It says:
…any other performance of whatsoever kind given in public. …
and I interpreted that to mean the Grand National.
I do not want to get into an argument. I believe I have made my point sufficiently. It may be illegal and I defer to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the issue, but if it is legal in this respect I hope that the Postmaster-General will allow the B.B.C. to get off to a flying start in this direction. That will do two things. First, it will give the public a grand spectacle which it is at present denied; and, second, it will put the B.B.C. in good fettle for the competition which will be extremely beneficial to them.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I shall not be controversial and I shall not talk about sponsored broadcasting. The Assistant Postmaster-General referred to the position in the North-East. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) also did so and said that the position was disgraceful. I want to tell the House and the Government exactly what the position is in the North-East.
We get a very raw deal from the B.B.C. in both sound broadcasting and television. We have no sound broadcasting wavelength of our own and share a medium wavelength with Northern Ireland, which means that the North-East has to listen for long periods to almost incomprehensible indigenous Irish programmes, things like "The M'Cooey's." There is very little community of interest between a country like Northern Ireland and a big industrial area like the North of England. We have got a raw deal in sound broadcasting and we have to pay the same licence as the rest of the country. In addition to this injustice, we have no television station.

Mr. William Wellwood: Does not that cut both ways? We in Northern Ireland get "Watcher Geordie" which we do not understand any more than the hon. Member understands "The McCooey's."

Mr. Short: I quite agree; we are both in the same position. This sort of programme is or very little community interest to any but the people who appreciate it.
As I have said, we have no television station. Ours is the last of the large, thickly populated areas to be covered, and at present it is very difficult to get any reception at all in television in the north-east. Some people buy sets and get very poor reception accompanied by the perpetual "snowstorms," but we have to pay the same licence as in any other part of the country. This area deserves much better treatment from the B.B.C. In Northumberland, Durham, and North Yorkshire there is a population of two to three million people. This areas possesses one of the largest and most important coalfields, and, in addition, it is one of the key industrial areas of the

land, and plays a considerable part in the export drive, on which our future depends.
The two to three million people living there deserve something better than they are getting both in sound broadcasting and in television, and I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will refer specifically to this point. My plea to the Government is that before they engaged in any of the developments mentioned by the Postmaster-General, such as colour television, television from external sources or other capital expenditure, I hope they will spare some capital expenditure to give the north-east a better deal.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I want only to deal with one aspect of this subject, the question of sponsored television, because, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) put forward a very interesting thesis, we have to face quite clearly the issue that if a non-exclusive Licence is granted the best of that non-exclusiveness has to come from sponsored programmes. There may be no escape there, and if we are to accept it we must accept that decision, too.
I speak as one who has an interest in the matter, and I want to put that interest from a different angle from that put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). I am, in fact, an advertising agent, and I should like to refute the suggestion that this desire for sponsorship has emanated from those primarily interested in advertising, because that is not the case. If one studies the promotion of advertising for radio or television in this country, one will realise at once that it will require new resources, new equipment and new staff and it will, in fact, give the advertising agent less remuneration than the use of the normal methods of advertising.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is not the whole purpose of sponsored programmes to get in advertisements?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is developing an argument which goes beyond Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

Mr. Harvey: I shall be guided by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was misguided by arguments previously used.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: For the guidance of intending participants in this discussion can we have a definition of what we are permitted to discuss?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was laid down by Mr. Speaker in his original Ruling. I cannot improve upon that.

Mr. Thomas: I have been in the Chamber during the greater part of this debate and I have discovered no limiting line for the coverage of the discussion, on either side of the House. Whether there is any line or not I do not know. It might be the 38th Parallel, or something like that.

Mr. Harvey: Perhaps I might refer to an observation made by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), which must have been in order or he would have been called to order for it. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we would not accept our education or our entertainment from bookmakers or brewers, but he is quite prepared to accept cheaper newspapers as a result of the advertisements put into them by bookmakers or brewers.
There has been a false approach to the subject of the standard of programme that we should be likely to get if sponsorship were allowed. If there is sponsorship, the programmes must be good. All the people who are concerned in advertising know that the standards which are expected by the British people must be upheld under sponsorship.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Ruling of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Harvey: I accept that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point I am endeavouring to make is that the argument that the standard of programme would be reduced by sponsorship is not justified by the fact.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick made some observations about vultures, and they have been subsequently taken up. The fact is that the Government are opening the door to people of initiative and enterprise who can present alternative means of entertainment to those already presented. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to justify, in the terms which he so eloquently used, the conservative and traditional methods of the B.B.C., but I detected another note, far more sinister, behind his introductory

remarks, when he referred to the "unique power" residing in the B.B.C.
It should be a matter for serious consideration on the part of the House whether there should reside a unique power in an organisation of this sort, and whether we should not, within reason and with great care, provide alternative means to prevent that unique power from becoming a supreme and absolute power which could be used by an unscrupulous Government to the detriment of the principles of democracy.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman divide the Armed Forces in the same way?

Mr. Harvey: I welcome the courage of the Government in preparing to open the door to an experiment. From my commercial experience, I do not share the fears of those who believe that in opening that door there will be a flood of programmes which will lower the general standard of morality in this country.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: However it may have started, the debate has continued around one point, the exclusiveness, or non-exclusiveness of this Licence. It would make no sense at all if I were to ignore my plain duty to reply to the points on this question which have been made during the debate.
The question of finance has been raised. There have been three main bases on which the non-exclusiveness of this Licence has been defended. There was the assumption that by challenging the monopoly of the B.B.C. a new form of broadcasting would introduce a welcome element of freedom into British television. That was mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman).
Then there has been underlying the case for a non-exclusive Licence the belief that financial resources would be forthcoming, that there would be more money for television programmes without extra cost either to the viewers or the Treasury. That assumption lay behind a great deal of what the hon. Member for Bath said and is, no doubt, part and parcel of the case for the non-exclusive Licence. Finally, behind all these sentiments, there


is the assumption that the alternative system of commercially sponsored television would give the public the programmes the public wants.
All these assumptions are wholly false. Let us take the financial point first. The case is that commercially sponsored television brings more money to television programmes without extra cost either to the viewers or to the Treasury. It is completely false. Quite apart from the question as to whether there are special occasions when advertising in certain lines pays for itself, no one can challenge the fact that, in the long run, advertising costs are recouped from the consumer of the advertised products.

Mr. Pitman: Mr. Pitman rose——

Mr. Mayhew: This is of great importance, if the hon. Member will allow me to proceed for a moment. The public will, in fact, pay for at least a substantial part of sponsored programmes. A member of the public will pay as a consumer of the advertised product. Every time he goes into a shop and buys a packet of cigarettes or into a pub and buys a bottle of beer, he will be paying a kind of invisible wireless licence.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Ruling that Mr. Speaker gave about discussing sponsored programmes.

Mr. Mayhew: I quite agree, and I will do my best to comply with the Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. However, the hon. Member for Bath in his speech raised this question of financial resources for the B.B.C. and my point is that such financial resources as are raised by sponsored television programmes are paid by the public as consumers instead of as licence holders.

Mr. Pitman: Surely it is possible, by making more Gillette blades in consequence of——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think that this discussion should be allowed to continue.

Mr. J. Rodgers: On a point of order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already called the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) to order.

Mr. Mayhew: Then may I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who raised the question of the 15 per cent. of licence money withheld. It would surely be an absurdity if, on the one hand, the Treasury were to withhold 15 per cent. of the licence money of the B.B.C. and, on the other hand, to subsidise sponsored television programmes. Yet in so far as an advertising campaign cuts into the profits of the advertiser or into the profits of competitive firms, the Treasury stands to lose a great deal of Income Tax and Profits Tax. It is perfectly clear to anyone who studies this matter that such of the sponsored programmes as are not paid for by the citizen and the consumer are paid for by the citizen as a taxpayer.

Mr. Pitman: If this is in order, may I just point out that in those circumstances, if the advertising brings in additional profit, as it would in 99 cases out of 100, it is to the Chancellor's benefit?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that is clearly out of order.

Mr. Mayhew: I pass then, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from that with a slight regret that if what I was saying was in order, I should be showing that those who pay in this manner—[Interruption.]I have plenty of other points to make in the debate, and I will leave that for the moment.
The second major point which is made in favour of the sponsored programmes—-and when the truth of what I am saying is understood by the public, as, I admit, it is not understood yet, very soon it will be found that the campaign for sponsored television collapses in the most ignominious fashion—is that by challenging the monopoly of the B.B.C, a welcome element of freedom is introduced. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove said that supporters of monopoly were using the arguments of tyranny throughout the ages. But all the arguments that we were using—those that I was using, anyhow—are contained in the White Paper, which says:
The Government recognise that this effective monopoly has done much to establish the excellent and reputable broadcasting service for which this country is renowned. …
We really ask for the B.B.C—the B.B.C. monopoly—to be given a chance of doing the same splendid work in television to


which the Government themselves pay tribute in relation to sound broadcasting.
Why not? What is this tyranny against which the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove inveighs, and which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) quoted Milton to destroy? It is the tyranny which the Government themselves praised in the warmest possible words in relation to sound broadcasting. Where is the essential point of difference? It is just the same. Have we really been living under a dreadful dictatorship in the past? This B.B.C. was set up by hon. Members opposite and has been praised by them. Why cannot we give it the same chance in television?
Then there is this new freedom that we are to get. What is the freedom for? Am I able, or is any hon. Member or any voluntary organisation able, to pay for a sponsored television programme? There are hundreds of worthy voluntary organisations with some entitlement, perhaps, to make their views heard in this way. Take the United Nations Association. A programme sponsored by the United Nations Association might perhaps have something to be said for it on the basis of the arguments advanced, but we know that neither the individual nor the group of individuals, nor the worthy voluntary organisation, has a hope of getting a sponsored television programme. They cannot afford it, nor can the small business man or the small advertiser afford it. There are only a handful of big business companies that can afford it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is very difficult to keep in order on this matter, I quite agree, but I hope that hon. Members will try to keep away from the subject of sponsored programmes.

Mr. Mayhew: I quite agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and when I have answered the argument of the hon. Member for Bath, I will proceed with another line.
The freedom which the hon. Member for Bath is asking for is of a very specialised kind. It is the freedom, for instance, of the Football Pools Association to give their views on gambling to viewers of all ages. It is the freedom of Johnny Walker whisky——

Mr. Anthony Fell: On a point of order. At the beginning of the

debate the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who replied to my hon. Friend who opened the debate, was repeatedly called to order on points that were not nearly so wide as those now being made all the time. Is it in order for this to continue?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sufficient attention has been drawn to the limits of order and hon. Members know quite well now, what the limits are.

Mr. Mayhew: The appeal to freedom and to Milton by the hon. Member for Bath, was sheer claptrap. What he is suggesting is to increase the political power of sections of the community which already have quite enough for the health of the community as a whole. The Government recognise this to a large extent, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. They do not trust these big advertisers at all. One of the first things to be done is to set up a system of censorship to keep these people in order. We have here the actual words from Command Paper 8550, paragraph 9:
It would be necessary to introduce safeguards against possible abuses and a controlling body would be required for this purpose, for regulating the conduct of the new stations, for exercising a general oversight of the programmes …
Here is Milton. Here is the true spirit of liberalism which was appealed to today. To be prohibited under this nonexclusive licensing system are political and religious broadcasting.
We have said something already about the kind of spirit of liberalism which bans such things as this but more interesting is the kind of broadcasting not banned. Take, for instance, sponsored television programmes for children. It is the intention of the Government to introduce commercially sponsored television programmes for children—sponsored "children's hours." I should have thought there would be agreement on both sides of the House on this Anyone who has watched children looking in has seen the fascination which television exerts on a child's mind and emotions. I should have thought there would have been agreement on both sides of the House that such a power as this should be in the hands of persons whose sole aim is to give the children entertainment and education—with the children's welfare as a single aim.
The view of the Government is that the entertainment and education of children is a thing which may be exploited to advertise commercial products. That is the view of the Government; it is the view of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member opposite is quite happy that his child should sit in front of a television set watching a commercially sponsored programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members say, "Why not?" Let them cling to their point of view and we on this side will go to the country and ask the parents, ask the teachers, and ask the churches, whether or not they think that children's television programmes should be the plaything of advertisers and commercialism.
I said there were three basic assumptions behind the case for sponsored television. I have dealt with two; first, that money is forthcoming for programmes without extra cost to viewers and without extra cost to the Treasury. That is false. We know now that the citizens of this country will pay an invisible wireless licence whenever they buy a product advertised on T.V. What is more, they will pay the licence whether or not they have a television set. Those who cannot afford a television set——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going beyond the Licence. There is nothing about a general system of sponsored television in this Licence. The only reference is paragraph 14 prohibiting the B.B.C. from transmitting matter for gain.

Mr. Mayhew: I am in the embarrassing position of having to comment on the debate in which I think the entire speeches, except one, were concerned with the single point of whether Licence should be an exclusive one or a non-exclusive one. All those speches were plainly in order, or they would be ruled out of order. Therefore, I hope you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to reply to the various points made in the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am not quite aware of what was said in my absence, but I hope the House on both sides will try to confine itself as much as possible to the Licence.

Mr. Mayhew: I am now coming to a conclusion of my remarks and my final point is concerned with the third basis of

commercially sponsored television, as it has been advanced in this debate. That is an assumption which has been behind every speech today, that commercially sponsored television gives the public what it wants in a way in which the monopoly of the B.B.C. does not. The theory is plain enough on this point. It is that the advertiser wants his advertising to be seen by the largest number of people, the largest number of people are attracted by the programmes enjoyed most therefore, it is in the advertiser's interest to give the public the programme that the public wants. I am trying to be fair.
The first part of this argument is plain and true enough. The advertiser wants the largest possible audience. This has been mentioned several times in the debate today. For proof of this one has only to study the television business magazines in the United States which list television programmes in a table known as "cost per thousand"—that is the magic phrase for television in the United States. It is the cost in dollars per minute of advertising time per thousand viewers. For example, "What's My line"——

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On a point of order. I suggest that this is going far beyond the limits of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the expenses and methods of television in the United States, in what he says is his third point against sponsoring. That is practically contradicting what you ruled at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: It is very difficult, if one speech is made, to prevent another Member from answering it. All I can ask the House to do is, if they have been straying beyond the strict confines of the Licence, to try to return to them now and turn over a new leaf.

Mr. Mayhew: My argument is devoted to showing that the B.B.C. should have an exclusive Licence and that a non-exclusive Licence does not merely not give the public what it wants but gives programmes which it does not want and does not give programmes which the public does want. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had sat through the debate he might have seen how much more in order my remarks are than apparently he does.
I will leave the example I was giving and return to my main point. No one disputes that the advertiser wants the largest audience for his programme. Now the theory looks a little sillier when we inquire to what extent the largest audiences are attracted by the programmes that are enjoyed most. At first sight it sounds platitudinous; it sounds obviously true, but in broadcasting it is plainly untrue.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Declare an interest.

Mr. Mayhew: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to declare an interest as a broadcaster I certainly do so. I wish hon. Members opposite would always declare their interests.
Of course, the fact that a programme is enjoyed increases its audience but there is another factor which increases an audience to a television programme which has nothing to do with enjoyment itself and the keenness of enjoyment. I refer to the factor that it must simultaneously appeal to the 90-year old and the nine-year old, to the clever man and the stupid man, to the Scots and the Welsh and to both sexes, of all ages. That is to say, this programme must have two factors: it must be enjoyed but it must also appeal to no particular age, no particular sex and no particular intellectual level.
That is not just a theory. One can see it working out in the United States, that when one goes out for a large audience at all costs one is depriving viewers of many of the programmes which they enjoy most keenly. Facts are available on this issue. It is an open secret that the B.B.C. research organisations, the Viewer Research Organisation and the corresponding Listener Research Organisation produce, in relation to any programme they cover, two figures. One figure shows the size of the audience and the other figure, called an appreciation index, shows whether the audience thought it was very bad, bad, fair, good or very good.
If hon. Members opposite were correct in their assumption, then there would be a correlation between these figures. The programmes with the larger audience would tend to have the highest appreciation index, but if they look at the facts they will find that that is not the case at all. It stands to reason that a pro-

gramme which is adjusted to a particular individual's state, not necessarily highbrow or lowbrow, but a programme which is addressed to a certain interest and a certain intellectual level, will be more keenly appreciated and enjoyed by that person.
This whole idea is alien to commercial radio and commercial television. They want the big audience at all costs, and for that they are prepared to sacrifice the minority programmes which are often the most keenly enjoyed programmes of all. We drive down our television and radio programmes inevitably as soon as we make a large audience our only criterion of success in broadcasting.
But now, of course, in their defence, hon. Members opposite advance this theory: "All right, let us accept that sponsored television has a particular role—the role of what you might call the average programme for the largest audience. Let sponsored radio do that job and let the B.B.C. do the minority programmes which are often more keenly appreciated. Let us have a dual system." We are told not to invoke Gresham's Law. The hon. Member for Bath referred to the publications department of the Stationery Office working side by side with private publishers; he said that they worked hand in hand and asked, "Why not the same with television?"
This plan does not work either in theory or in practice and it is clear why it should not work. In practice, my right hon. Friend has referred to the example of Canada and Australia. Now may I deal with the theory of the matter? I do not know whether this is presumptuous, but let me take a personal example. Even at the risk of seeming immodest, I want to impress this upon the House.
Let us take a personal example of the programme with which I am concerned—a programme called "International Commentary." This is an example of a programme with a less than average audience and with a higher than average appreciation index. For this to be sponsored there would inevitably be pressure to increase the audience, and this could be done quite easily. It is a technique. Anyone can increase an audience. A pretty girl in a studio and a quiz programme in the middle with a prize attached can increase the audience


straight away. That could easily be done.
If sponsored television gets a hold it will first either take these minority programmes and dilute them, destroy their character and drive them down to the average programme level, or else it will suppress them altogether in the following manner. It will have at its disposal—we have discussed this and admitted it—enormous financial resources, such as would rightly be regarded as extravagant if handled by a public corporation. With this money it will simply buy away the B.B.C.'s programmes.
Take the popular programme, "What's My Line?" This is a very good illustration of what I mean. "What's My Line?" is one of the most popular British television programmes, and it is also a popular programme in the United States of America.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Where did it start?

Mr. Mayhew: It started in the United States of America. Here, we do a public service version. Would the hon. and gallant Member like to know the difference between these two programmes? The main difference is that in America "What's My Line?" is begun, ended and interrupted by an advertisement for a deodorant. That is the Stoppette spray deodorant. Next time the hon. Gentleman is looking at "What's My Line?" on the B.B.C., let him lament the fact that when Elizabeth Allan has finished there is no advertisement for Stoppette deodorant. That is the kind of thing he means to do to this most popular programme.
When I say that the two systems cannot exist side by side I mean that if sponsored television were allowed in this country the big business firms and advertisers would simply buy up a programme such as "What's My Line?" They have the financial resources and they would use them to buy away with double or treble the fees the performers, technicians, cameramen and producers. This happens today in Canada and Australia.
Every time the B.B.C. produced a winning programme it would be bought up by big business and put on with advertisements in the middle, in a sponsored programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why

not?"] Why not?—because we say that we do not want to undermine the B.B.C. Hon. Members opposite say the same thing. One cannot have the two things running side by side. I think there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who know that and who mean to undermine the B.B.C. If they do not know it they have not studied the matter. That is what will be the effect of this policy.
I have dealt with the three main bases behind this policy of sponsored television. If all these assumptions—which, I think, are false—were true, I should still be against commercially-sponsored television. Surely there are already enough things in our national life which are commercialised. I should have thought that television, in particular—which, for good or ill, will be a dominant force in our social life in the years ahead and which will have an enormous impact—should not be commercialised.
The Assistant Postmaster-General talks of television as though it were just a routine Departmental matter for the Post Office. He has no conception of what it means or of its possibilities. We are not discussing anything like the decision of the Uthwatt Committee on radio. This is not comparable with sound radio. Take television sets which, in spite of the needs of defence—which, I agree, must have priority—are now selling in increasing numbers. Each set is used three or four times more intensively than a radio set and there is, on the average, a greater audience for each set. Television makes an impact on the emotions, the memory and the intellect which is far beyond that which sound radio makes, even with the primitive techniques in use today, without colour and the new techniques of persuasion which are bound to be developed in the years ahead.
For good or ill, television will dominate our social and cultural life. It is an unprecedented power in our national life. The Government showed no understanding whatever about this. I do not believe that half of them have a television set. They do not understand it. This is an important issue. The Government could fall on this issue, if it were not already flat on its face as a result of various other misdeeds. Hon. Members opposite comprise about the worst Government and the worst Parliamentary party this country has known and this broadcasting policy


of theirs is a signal victory for the worst elements among them.
I beg the Government to have second thoughts about this matter. It may pay them quite well when the next General Election comes round. Let the B.B.C. have the opportunity to do the same thing for television as it has done for sound radio—of making Britain pre-eminent in television as we have been and are preeminent in sound radio.

9.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe) rose——

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Am I right in thinking that this is exempted business, Mr. Speaker?

Sir Sidney Marshall: The hon. Member ought to know.

Mr. Ross: I was addressing my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand, if this is exempted business, that speeches after the one which seems likely to be delivered now will not receive any response from the Government at all?

Mr. Speaker: This is exempted business; that is all I know. It is for the Government themselves to decide what course of action they follow.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: However it coincided now and again, or failed to coincide, with the Ruling on order which you have given, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the whole House will have appreciated, in the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) an attack upon the dangers of advertisement by a master of advertising. I can only hope that the appreciation index of which he spoke so learnedly will not come into too close an examination of his speech in cold print.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who opened the debate from the benches opposite, showed, I thought, every characteristic which the most bitter enemies of the legal profession have attributed to it from time immemorial. He heard the Ruling, he understood the Ruling, and he proceeded, by a method which used actionably to be called "pettifogging," to base his argument on the word "non-exclusive."

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to imply that you were wrong, Mr. Speaker, in allowing me to go on making my remarks?

Mr. Speaker: I am not a very sensitive person, but I did not detect any criticism in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There was no criticism; there was a congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman on the method by which he proceeded in his speech. But the point which I think one has to face, and which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to obscure, is this: the basis of his speech was the use of the word "nonexclusive." He knows as well as anyone in the House that every Licence which has been given, every Licence which has been discussed in the House, has been a non-exclusive Licence. I was rather surprised at his attempt to obscure that point, because I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not have come to make his speech without informing himself about the position.
That being so, I propose to deal with points on which he sought for information with his tongue rather less in his cheek than it was on the point with which I have just dealt. The first, if I remember rightly, was on the contract of service of those engaged by the national Broadcasting Councils. He was quite right in his interpretation that the actual employment, as set out in Clause 13 (9) of the Charter, will be by the B.B.C. The selection will be by the national Council, but the contract of service will be with the B.B.C. I think that deals with the fears which he expressed on that point.
He dealt secondly with the question of Clause 16 of the Charter—the trade union point, which, he indicated, was by implication brought in by the Licence. There again, as has been said elsewhere, we earnestly hope—and I think this applies to both sides of the House; indeed, to every Member of the House—that the delay that has taken place will very soon be ended and a satisfactory position achieved.
I am not quite sure what the aesthetic basis of his objection to the word "external" was. I think it was the conservatism and favour of the status quo which filled the whole of his speech that


probably made him prefer once again something unchanged in the word "overseas"; but I do want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman—because he mentioned for a moment that there was politics in it; and that was the phrase which I wanted to make clear—that there is no question of any political matter. It was the suggestion of the B.B.C., and, for the reasons which have been given, we thought it should be maintained.
On the question of monitoring—I shall not read the Clause myself—I refer the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 15 (5) of the Licence and ask him to compare it with Clause 18. I think he will find that the financial payment for the monitoring system is fairly dealt with.
There was one further point that the right hon. Gentleman raised, and even if it is not in order on what I have argued I am very anxious that the questions that have been raised should be answered, and the right hon. Gentleman did put the point as to the question of time. Again, I shall do him the credit of supposing that this time it was a question and not a disguised argument, and, if you, Mr. Speaker, and the House will allow me, I should like to make that point clear.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Postmaster-General indicated that the meaning of his phrase was building the five new low-powered television stations and making a good start on developing the use of very high frequencies. I do not think anyone can translate that into years or months. I have tried, with the best technical advice that I could get, and my own firm belief is that it cannot be. But that is the state of development which we want, and that must depend on the availability of resources.
The optimist will say that those resources will be available very shortly, the pessimist will take a different view; and I can only give the conditions which we think should obtain, and, at the same time, emphasise, as, is only right, that conditions are never an excuse for procrastination. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that.

Mr. Gordon Walker: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he agrees with the Lord Chancellor that it will be several years? That was the phrase he used in another place.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did look at the speech, but I was not able to find the passage. It is a matter of resources and doing certain things. I have tried very hard to solve this problem, but I do not believe that anyone can at the present time translate it with any accuracy, in the ordinary sense of the term, into years and months. That is the best I can do. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe that I am trying to give him the best answer, but if he thinks that it can be translated more accurately, I should be very interested to hear.
The next main point was made by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), and that concerned the 85 per cent. He, with the frankness that one associates with him and the county he represents, did not wrap that up in controversy. He said that he had always objected to the 85 per cent., and he objected to any amount being taken. There are two lines of argument I would ask him to consider. The first is that under the Licence it is possible for the B.B.C. to make representations on that matter, if they have reasons which they wish to put forward. The second is, as I indicated previously, that with regard to borrowing powers we are taking the same line and the same sum as our predecessors, and giving borrowing powers up to £10 million. That meets the need for capital investment, which is the field in which funds are more likely to be needed.

Mr. Houghton: What I do not understand is why we first pick their pockets and then give them powers to borrow and pay interest on that borrowing.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The point I was endeavouring to make was that the problem is likely to arise, and the rub is likely to be felt, over the question of capital expenditure, and that is met by the borrowing powers. As to what percentage should be taken by the Treasury and the net amount which should be left to the B.B.C., I believe that, for once, an opinion held by two Governments and the majority on both sides of the House does not make for common error but for common Tightness and correctness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) also went into the field of law, and followed the right hon. Member for Smethwick in the construction and


interpretation of documents which, fortunately perhaps, are not even attempted in the field from which they were culled. I assure the House that I do not anticipate the very serious results of, and the meaning which my hon. Friend read into, Clause 14 of the Licence—that it will allow the B.B.C. to do sponsoring. I agree with the interpretation that it is confined to purposes of the kind mentioned in the previous line.
I should like to say how much the whole House recognised the appeal of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). He was expressing a difficulty with regard to the North-East Coast which we all appreciate. I think that in answering the right hon. Gentleman on the question of time I have shown that the provision of the programme for the North-East Coast is a matter about which we are seriously concerned, and whose priority we shall rate high. In doing so, may I say that that is not any derogation from my pride in and affection for Northern Ireland, who require similar and correlative assistance.

Mr. Short: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that maximum capital development should come before colour television?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do, and I think that the remarks of my hon. Friend indicated that, while colour is a most fascinating and interesting experiment and one which we should like to see developed, it is not a matter of immediacy and cannot be in the present state, whereas I think that the needs of the district for which the hon. Gentleman spoke are matters which require immediate attention as soon as it can be given. I think that everyone agrees with that point. I wanted to make clear to him that we appreciate the point that he made.
These are the points that have been raised with regard to the contents of the Licence, and, so far as I have realised—and I have sat throughout the whole debate—they are all the points. It would be, I think, too paradoxical if, after endeavouring, in the most respectful way, to suggest what were the terms of order and interrupting one or two speeches in that way, I were now to depart from that course and proceed to answer the arguments concerning sponsoring and anti-sponsoring: and you, Mr. Speaker, would

be the first, I think, to call attention to such a breach of order, especially from this Box.

Mr. Norman Smith: We should be going on all night.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That subject we have discussed and decided. Today we are putting forward the conditions under which the B.B.C. will operate. I am glad to think that these conditions are such as to give greater freedom and an assured financial position, and also the requirements to make the technical improvements which will be of such value to every citizen in this country.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: Unlike most hon. Members present, I have been here since this debate started, and I have listened to every speech. I do not think that the Government have done justice to the importance of this subject, in the single-date debate on their own White Paper which we had recently or in the effort of the Home Secretary tonight, with the help, possibly, of the Patronage Secretary, to curtail this debate. Not only did he rise, to my mind, far too early, but while the earlier speeches were being made on this side of the House he interrupted far too often in an effort completely to gag the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman sought from the start to narrow this debate, and it was very obvious that he was by no means enjoying the trend that the debate was taking. After all, the Treasury Minute and the White Paper itself stated that the new Licence and Agreement takes account of the Government's proposals contained in the White Paper, and therefore, to my mind, it was inevitable, in discussing this Licence and Agreement, that we should refer to the White Paper proposals.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that this is only to be the terms within which the B.B.C. have to operate. I am surprised that, after some of the speeches which we heard last week and some of the speeches which we have heard today, the Government are going to permit the B.B.C. to operate at all. We have heard the B.B.C. denounced as a "monster," and the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) talked as if he wished completely to break up the sound monopoly of the B.B.C. If his speech meant


anything, he wanted competition. He instanced the fact that the North-East of Scotland cannot properly hear the B.B.C. The people there want to hear the B.B.C. They do not want to hear sponsored programmes.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to consider that the Opposition had no desire to spread the control of the B.B.C. from Portland Place in any way, but surely he will recollect that the White Paper issued by the Labour Government contained proposals for the further devolution of the B.B.C. I refer him to Paras. 17 and 20 of the Labour Government's White Paper on Broadcasting.
I want to take up with the Home Secretary Clause 15 of the Licence, which lays down that the B.B.C.:
… shall send efficiently on every day (including Sundays) programmes in the Home Sound Services. …
Reading the Licence in the light of the proposals already made by the Government, I do not think the B.B.C. will be able to give us an efficient service. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove should be voting against the Licence because under the Government's proposals there will be less devolution for Scotland than there is at present.
At present the Scottish and Welsh regions have theoretical autonomy. The only limiting factor to the provision of a full Scottish Service at present is finance, and under the Government's proposals 100 per cent. finance control is being maintained at the centre. Further, whereas at present the Regional Councils are appointed by the Scottish and Welsh directors, under the new proposals they will be appointed by a predominantly English Committee. From that point of view we have answered the indignant but spurious protestations of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove.
We in Scotland are interested in television. We are concerned about public education in Scotland, and, if there is anything of which we are proud, it is the

fact that the educational programmes of the B.B.C. have been so outstandingly good. What will happen with television? The hon. Gentleman who, with every second sentence, "opened the door" for initiative and enterprise, was opening the door to the homes of the people and the minds of the children.

The debate ought to have been wound up by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who not long ago went to Kirk o'Shotts and, in the company of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, declared open the first television station in Scotland. Two days later the Moderator of the Church of Scotland dedicated television in Scotland from St. Cuthbert's, Edinburgh. Little did he think that the man beside him at that time was even then conniving at the debauching of what the Moderator called "The Miracle of T.V." Now it is to be used through sponsoring for the greater glory of beer, betting and Beecham's. Is this what the people of Scotland and Wales want?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is straying outside the Licence. I have ruled that the general question of sponsored television is not in order. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was in mid-career when I came in and it was very difficult to stop him.

Mr. Ross: I think I am entitled to reply to some of the things that have been said. I have only one more remark to make. I read with considerable interest a speech made by Lord Woolton in Manchester at the week-end. He should get a new script writer. He talked about travelling through a dark tunnel and seeing a light ahead. It was not a red light. It was the dim light of hope. The only light that I can see in this Government's dark tunnel is the ghastly glow of sponsored television. And that this country rejects.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 267.

Division No. 182.]
AYES
[10.2 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Barber, A. P. L.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Barlow, Sir John


Alport, C. J. M.
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Baxter, A. B.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baker, P. A. D.
Beach, Maj. Hicks


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Baldwin, A. E.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)


Arbuthnot, John
Banks, Col. C.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)




Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Mellor, Sir John


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Molson, A. H. E.


Birch, Nigel
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Black, C. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Hay, John
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bowen, E. R.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicholls, Harmar


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heath, Edward
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Braine, B. R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nutting, Anthony


Brooke, Henry (Hampsted)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, H. D


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Odey, G. W


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H (Antrim, N.)


Bullard, D. G.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hollis, M. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Burden, F F. A.
Holt, A. F.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hope, Lord John
Osborne, C.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hopkinson, Henry
Partridge, E.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peake, Rt. Hon O


Cary, Sir Robert
Horobin, I. M.
Perkins, W. R. D


Channon, H.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peyton, J. W. W


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Pickthorn, K. W. M


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cole, Norman
Hurd, A. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Colegate, W. A.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'grh W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Raikes, H. V.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Rayner, Brig. R


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Redmayne, M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Remnant, Hon. P


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jennings, R.
Renton, D. L. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Crouch, R. F.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robertson, Sir David


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robson-Brown, W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Kaberry, D.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Roper, Sir Harold


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Deedes, W. F.
Lambert, Hon. G
Russell, R. S.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lambton, Viscount
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Donner, P. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leather, E. H. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott, R. Donald


Drewe, C.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T, (Richmond)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Shepherd, William


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Linstead, H. N.
Simon, J E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Eden, Rt. Hon, A.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Erroll, F. J
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Fell, A.
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Speir, R. M.


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McAdden, S. J.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fort, R.
McCorquodala, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stevens, G. P.


Foster, John
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McKibbin, A. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gage, C. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Storey, S.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclay, Hon. John
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Gammans, L. D.
MacLeod, Rt. Hon, Iain (Enfield, W)
Summers, G. S.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Sutcliffe, H.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Comdr J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Teeling, W.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Gower, H. R.
Markham, Major S. F.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marples, A. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Grimond, J.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Tilney, John


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maudling, R
Touche, Sir Gordon


Harden, J. R. E.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C
Turner, H. F. L.


Hare, Hon. J. H
Medlicott, Brig. F
Turton, R. H.







Tweedsmuir, Lady
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Vane, W. M. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Wills, G.


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Watkinson, H. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Vosper, D. F.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Wood, Hon. R.


Wade, D. W.
Wellwood, W.
York, C.


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)



Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walker-Smith, D. C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Butcher.


Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)





NOES


Adams, Richard
Finch, H. J
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Albu, A. H.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McLeavy, F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Follick, M.
MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Foot, M. M.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mainwaring, W. H


Awbery, S. S.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield, E.)


Ayles, W. H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gibson, C. W.
Manuel, A. C.


Baird, J.
Glanville, James
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A


Barnes, Rt Hon A. J
Gooch, E. G.
Mayhew, C. P.


Bartley, P.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Messer, F.


Bence, C. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mikardo, Ian


Benn, Wedgwood
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moody, A. S.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morley, R.


Blackburn, F.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, S.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.


Boardman, H.
Hardy, E. A.
Moyle, A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.
Hargreaves, A.
Mulley, F. W.


Bowden, H. W.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Murray, J. D.


Bowles, F. G.
Hastings, S.
Nally, W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hayman, F. H.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Brockway, A. F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt Hon. P J


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Rowley Regis)
Oldfield, W. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Orbach, M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hobson, C. R.
Oswald, T.


Burke, W. A.
Holman, P.
Paget, R. T.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hoy, J. H
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pannell, Charles


Carmichael, J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pargiter, G. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, J.


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, J.


Chapman, W. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pearson, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Peart, T. F.


Clunie, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Cocks, F. S.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Poole, C. C.


Coldrick, W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Collick, P. H.
Janner, B
Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Proctor, W. T.


Cove, W. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S)
Reeves, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Daines, P.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rhodes, H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Richards, R.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Keenan, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)


Deer, G
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Dodds, N. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, C.


Donnelly, D. L.
Kinley, J.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Driberg, T. E. N
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Short, E. W.


Edelman, M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Logan, D. G.
Slater, J.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ewart, R.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)


Fernynough, E.
McGovern, J.
Snow, J. W.


Field, W. J.
McInnes, J.
Sorensen, R. W.







Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Sparks, J. A.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilkins, W A.


Steele, T.
Timmons, J.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Tomney, F.
Williams, David (Neath)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Aberlillery)


Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Stross, Dr. Barnett
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Swingler, S. T.
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, W T. (Hammersmith, S)


Sylvester, G. O.
Weitzman, D.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Woodburn, Rt Hon A


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
West, D. G.
Wyatt, W L


Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Yates, V F.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)



Thomas, Iowerth (Rhondda, W)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wigg, George
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Holmes.

Resolved,
That the Licence and Agreement, dated 12th June, 1952, between Her Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NEWSPRINT PRICES

10.12 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Newsprint (Prices) (Amendment No. 6) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 933), dated 8th May 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be annulled.
When we continued the system of newsprint rationing, both by price and quantity, which had been inaugurated in the early days of the war, there were many attacks on the Government to the effect that what we were doing was instituting a control over the free Press of this country and, indeed, were menacing the freedom of that Press.
Newsprint was in short supply. It was necessary that a scheme which had been begun in the interests of ensuring fair shares for all, both for the small newspapers as well as for the large newspapers, should be maintained. It would be ungenerous if we did not pay tribute to the work of some leading newspaper proprietors who, in the darkest days of the war, voluntarily surrendered very valuable contracts that they had so that the smaller, independent newspapers were not forced out of existence by the then current scarcity. Out of that voluntary effort, which was a most generous gesture, the Newsprint Supply Company was formed, which has been responsible since then for the distribution of supplies.
But now we are faced with a bad situation, which has been perpetuated by the

Order against which my hon. Friends and I are praying. Newsprint prices are dependent on several factors, one of the most important of which, perhaps,' is the cost of the pulp that is brought into this country. There is also the cost of the finished material which is manufactured outside the country, and which is distributed on a basis which I will describe presently.
The situation today is that the Minister of Materials decreed that as from 1st April there was to be a ceiling on the prices of the pulp that is the raw material of newsprint. The ceiling that he fixed for both classes of pulp—the different kinds of pulp that are used in the manufacture of newsprint—results roughly in the cost of pulp being £47 a ton. From 1st July, the price of pulp will be reduced to just under £40 a ton.
Those are reductions in price which are welcome, but it is worth while to relate those prices to the price of newsprint as established under the Order. Over the past two years, the price of newsprint has rocketed to an extent not shared by any other commodity in this country—from £32 to £45, to £65 and to £66 a ton in the course of two years; and today's price is £64 a ton.
It is a complicated matter to explain to the House exactly the way in which those prices are arrived at, but it may be accepted that the price of English newsprint—newsprint made within these shores—is £64 1s. 3d. per ton, the price of Canadian newsprint £56 per ton, and of Scandinavian newsprint £70 per ton. By virtue of the fact that there is a different proportion of the total amount produced by the English to the Scandinavian and the Canadian mills, the general averaged price is £64 a ton. On 1st July, however, the price of Scandinavian newsprint is to be reduced by £20


a ton, from £70 to roughly £50 a ton. It is reasonable to believe, therefore, that at about 1st July the averaged price will be something just below £60 a ton.
What causes this reduction? The reason is that the Scandinavian market is weakening for the first time since 1940. There is a flattening out of the rising demand that has been prevalent in the United States. Canadian production is increasing, the Argentine and the Australian markets are being closed to the Scandinavians, and, generally, there are world-wide import cuts.
This is where this Order is working extremely hardly on the newspapers of this country. Despite the fact that there are very considerable reductions, as I have indicated, of nearly £20 a ton in the price of Scandinavian newsprint the price has come down to only £60 a ton. The reason is that there is no indication in this Order, or from the Ministry of Materials, that the price of English newsprint, now standing at £64 per ton is to be reduced because the price of pulp—the necessary materials is to be reduced by £7 a ton.
The newspaper industry is left in a state of great anxiety as to the future. Well might it have anxiety, for the situation is now this. On the present basis of the cost of paper in this country at £64 per ton the price of pulp is only £47. What else is used in the manufacture of newsprint—coal, labour, transport, some water, some china clay and some profit? For that an allowance of £17 per ton, the difference between £47 for pulp and £64 for paper delivered to the press room, is allowed the mills to meet those charges.
But in 1939 the British newsprint mills were delivering paper into the press rooms of the newspapers for just under £10 a ton and for that they paid the cost of pulp, transport, labour, coal, water, china clay and made a profit. Today, that is not enough. This generous Government gives them £17 a ton for fripperies, if the profits I propose to reveal later can be so described.
What is the result? Every week a newspaper or periodical in this country dies. Fifty have died in the last 12 months; not trivial, unimportant newspapers, not speculative things, mushrooming out of a scarcity situation. Not

at all, they are reputable newspapers which have represented the point of view of decent folk all over this country—the "Grantham Guardian," the "Perthshire Constitutional and Journal," the "Buxton Herald," the "Axminster and Lyme Regis Clarion," the "Gosforth Gazette," the "Ulster Post," "Public Opinion," a most eminently satisfactory and admirable weekly paper, the "Guardian," that distinguished Church of England weekly newspaper, the "Rothesay Express," the "Dunfermline and West Fife Journal," and, not to be omitted, the "Fishing Bulletin." Those papers have died because they could not sustain the strain that these high newsprint prices were imposing upon them.
It will be observed that I have not said a word in defence of what in Fleet Street were referred to in my salad days as "the big boys." I have stressed the effect of this Order on the small people because the big boys can look after themselves. It was suggested to me this evening that I was moving this Prayer in the interests of defending Lord Beaverbrook because, as is well known, I had an association with him. I should like to assure the House that it is not necessary for any Member of this House, any group or society, or party, to defend Lord Beaverbrook. On the contrary, what is required is a Society for the Protection of Lord Beaverbrook's Victims from his lordship.
Lord Beaverbrook is quite able to take care of himself and now that he has invented the Beaverbrook Conception of History and harnessed the radio waves to his support, what is required is a defence mechanism to protect us against his lordship. He is quite capable of withstanding the onslaughts that are ruining the prospects for free and independent journalism in the villages and small towns of this country.
Who are the real beneficiaries under this Order? The British newsprint manufacturers who import the pulp and make the finished product and deliver to the newspapers of this country. Last year, the eight leading paper manufacturers of this country made a total profit of £32,371,441. That is far greater than the combined profits of all the newspapers of this country—far greater. What did the mills do? They put £12¼ million to reserves, raising them to £49 million; they distributed £1,401,000 in dividends.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going a little wide of this Order, which merely makes a change in the maximum price of newsprint.

Sir L. Plummer: I will concentrate on the people who are confined almost exclusively to the manufacture of newsprint, that is the firms of Bowater's and Reed's, and as illustrations of the way in which these Orders are assisting them, I will show how their profits have risen quite disproportionately. In 1947 Bowater's, the largest manufacturers of newsprint in this country, and the main beneficiaries under this Order, made £2¾ million profit, in 1948 £3,800,000, in 1949 £4¼ million, in 1950 £6 million and last year £11,130,000.
Reed's, the second biggest newsprint manufacturers in this country, began 1947 with a miserable profit of £842,933: they increased that to £975,000 in 1948, then to £1,150,000 in 1949. They experienced a drop in 1950 to £1,144,000 but managed to recoup themselves in 1951 with a profit of £4,326,000.
How did these mills make those enormous profits last year? This is where these Orders help. They did it in this way: when prices were rising as a result of the increase in raw material prices generally because of the world situation, the mills who benefit under this Order went to the Government and said, "The price of pulp, which is the integral factor in the manufacture of our newsprint"—and which is covered in this Order—"is going up. Therefore, when you fix the price of newsprint you must fix it on the basis that the pulp is priced at replacement cost, that is to say, not at the cost at which the pulp was bought by us but at the cost which we should have to meet if we replaced it." The Government agreed, and in the normal fixing of the price the replacement price was the operative figure.
But when the price of pulp goes down, owing to the steps which the Government have taken—I admit that quite freely—the mills say, "But this drop in the cost of pulp is reducing the value of our stocks. Therefore, you must compensate us for that reduction in the value of our stocks." So, whatever happens, the mills must win. Does Lord Swinton, as Minister of Materials, never look at the balance sheets of these mills? Does

he never look at their annual reports? Does he make no inquiries?
Is what, in effect, happens that the representative of the British mills goes to the Ministry of Materials, as he used to go to the Board of Trade, and say, "Here are the production costs of the mills in this country. But I do not want you to know what the individual costs are, I do not want them to be clear, so I scramble them. I put the big fellows in with the little fellows, the competent mills with the inefficient mills, the high producing mills with the low producing mills," on the basis of the man who put horse into his rabbit pies and said that he did so on the basis of 50–50—one horse one rabbit? What happens is the rabbit of low prices goes 50–50 with the horse of high prices.
At one time the newspapers used to go along to the Ministry—the big newspapers and little newspapers alike—and put their case against these increases, but I regret to say that that system has stopped. Clearly the Director-General of the British Paper and Board Mills, Sir Herbert Hutchinson, has been too much for the Government. To him must go much of the credit for this very handsome and comfortable position in which the newsprint mills find themselves.
His advocacy, his powers and his general knowledge of the people and the Departments with which he deals have served the mills in very good stead, and have served the consumers in this country and the Government in very bad stead. But that is his job, and he is doing it extremely well, and the mills should be grateful to him.
What should be done? How are we to preserve the future of these small and struggling newspapers against these inflated prices? The first thing the Government should do is, on the basis of pulp costing £40 a ton, to reduce the price of newsprint to £50 a ton; £10 would be ample compensation for the mills.
No doubt, despite all the optimistic statements which were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, the Government are faced with the prospect that they may have to restrict the import both of pulp and the finished product. I urge the Government not to accept the argument of the mills that if less newsprint comes from Canada or Scandinavia the British price must rise


again, and to prevent even greater profits being made out of shortages. The Government do not want to lose the last vestige of friendship which they have with the newspapers, they will surely not fall for that line from the newsprint mills.
I recommend that the Government withdraw Order 933 and make a vigorous attack on the whole basis of the submission of these prices. Every six months the mills submit prices and each time the profit goes up. Here is an opportunity to form a real commission of inquiry into the principle on which these prices are based.
There is needed an Order that is designed to produce prices which are in keeping with the needs of the market, with the ability of newspapers large and small throughout the country to pay them, and which at the same time returns to newsprint mills a reasonable and decent profit, and not the sort of profit which swells their accounts in this fashion. That is the way to promote confidence in the future among the small newspapers, magazines and periodicals which are the real fundamental basis of our free Press.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Percy Holman: I beg to second the Motion.
First let me assure the House that I have no interest in newsprint. This Order against which we are praying tonight reduces the price of newsprint by £2 17s. 6d. per ton. It was inevitable that an order should be made once the Government had placed a ceiling on pulp towards the end of last February. This came into operation in April.
In effect, it cut the price of most sulphite pulps by about £10 a ton, and many spot parcels, as they are called in the trade, by more than that. We are told that some spot parcels of sulphite were being purchased by British mills for as much as £115 a ton, although the majority of the sales on long contract were in the region of £90, and some sulphite, the cheapest made being sufficiently good for newsprint, was often somewhat lower than that.
As far as mechanical pulp was concerned, which represents 80 per cent. of the contents of newsprint, this was mostly

£41 or £42 a ton and the ceiling was placed at £39. The actual saving on raw material made by the mills exceeded the figure of £2 17s. 6d. a ton.
In proof of that I would draw the attention of the House by way of illustration to the other Order issued at the same time as this one, and to which a Prayer was put down but was afterwards withdrawn. It is very apposite in this connection, for it deals with the Paper (Prices) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 6) Order, 1952, which is operative from the same date; and it deals with mechanical printings, which are those in which mechanical pulp tends to predominate; and the lowest price for it, under this Order is £60 12s. 6d. a ton. That is paper containing more than 70 per cent. of mechanical pulp, and it is slightly thicker than newsprint.
In the Order made on the very same day, newsprint is listed at £63 10s. 0d., as against a somewhat superior paper. There is a reduction in the one Order of £7 2s. 6d. a ton, and in the other of £2 2s. 6d. a ton. The better paper used by many periodicals comes down below the price of newsprint, which is made by a cheaper process on faster running machines on the whole.
How can the Government experts and the Parliamentary Secretary justify such a position? How can they justify these two Orders, signed on the same date, with this slightly superior paper coming on the market at a lower figure than the newsprint price? It is just an absurdity. What is behind this; what does it mean? First, it means that newsprint has a more rigid market.
The newspapers have to produce six or eight pages every day. They have been allowed 10 per cent. extra newsprint, but they are not taking it up; even the big dailies are finding some difficulty about it, because they cannot afford it. Mechanical printings are in general use, and in stock, and very often ordering can be held off for months, and it will be found that very soon after 1st July—and indeed, already—these prices for mechanical printings are ceiling prices, and most contracts are being placed well below them.
But not so with British newsprint Contracts, I believe, in all cases, are being placed at £64 1s. 3d. The ceiling has recently been reduced again by 20


per cent. for sulphide, and for mechanical pulp by 5 per cent. and these ceilings today are not realistic. In the "Financial Times" we have been told that mechanical pulp was offered by Scandinavia at £35, and the British mills were not in agreement.
Now is the time when the British mills ought to have agreed with the Government as to their price from 1st July on the basis of replacement costs. Many figures tend to show that at the beginning of the year the average cost of the pulp, per ton of newsprint, had fallen by more than is generally believed. I have taken the most conservative, the lowest figure of contracts, and that shows from 1st July a fall of over £11 a ton, part of which ought to have been reflected in this Order, something composite and similar to that found in the mechanical printings Order.
I want the Government to look into this matter very quickly, firstly, because the profits of the British mills in this respect are absolutely excessive; and secondly, because, in spite of what was said by hon. Members opposite for years past about the shortage of newsprint preventing the education of the democracy of this country, today the stocks are double what they were at the beginning of the year.
There are high-priced stocks in the hands of the small publications as well as the large; they cannot use them because they would lose money on every edition they published if they added pages at the present high costs and the lack of additional advertising matter. Their excuse is that the public likes its news in tabloid form; in other words, they could not give another two pages of news without a proportion of advertising in them.
The main consideration before us tonight is: Why did the Government agree to such a small diminution in the price of newsprint in this Order? Can we have a pledge from the Government that they will seriously go into the costing side of the problem—in Scandinavia from 1st July there is to be a considerable fall in the price of newsprint—and see that the British mills act in advance and do not keep the country waiting in a condition of uncertainty for four, six or eight weeks

as the still lower-priced pulp begins to flow into this country at a figure around £35 a ton.
This Government consider themselves to have more business ability and more company directors, and so on, than we have on this side of the House. Let them show their business acumen in the interests of our consumers. Why should we not have bigger newspapers? We do not want those of pre-war size; nobody is asking for that. But let us have a bit more news, and a little less of the tabloid form of news.
My hon. Friend has suggested that the price of British newsprint could come down from £64 to £50 a ton. I cannot commit myself to that exact figure, but unless the Government can bring it down sharply after 1st July by a very considerable proportion of that amount they will show themselves conclusively to be thoroughly incompetent, and not worthy of even being known as businessmen. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take that to heart and ensure that his technical advisers see that British mills bring down their prices without any conditions.
There have been some unpleasant reports recently that the British mills are trying to get the Press to agree to support a tariff on imported newsprint as a condition of adequate reductions in price. That report has come to me from several quarters. I cannot produce written evidence because that sort of thing does not get into writing.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): That is a very serious statement. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of that I very much hope that he will send it to me.

Mr. Holman: As I say, it is the sort of thing that is passed from mouth to, mouth. It is not put in writing. Nevertheless, it is possible that that is happening and it can be obviated if the Government take strong action, and say, "We are going to send costing accountants into these mills to see what is a fair rate of profit on the basis of replacement costs." If that had been done in connection with this Order the price would have been lowered, if it were shown that from 1st July there is to be another very substantial reduction in price.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: I think the House is aware of my special interest in this subject of newsprint, and although I shall try to be fair and objective in what I say, and not join in any attack upon the mills supplying a large share of the newsprint consumed in this country, I must confess that my bias is on the side of the consumer. From that point of view I welcome the support of the mover and seconder of this Prayer.
I cannot support the Prayer, because the Order which is being prayed against makes a reduction in the very high price of newsprint. If the Prayer were successful, I suppose the result would be that even the small benefit we have received in these last few months would be taken away. But although the price of newsprint has been reduced by this Order it remains, as the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said, at just about twice what it was two years ago. Owing to the welcome increase in supplies of newsprint recently, stocks of newsprint in the hands of the newspapers have doubled within the last year. So the financial burden which rests upon the newspapers today arising from the high cost of newsprint is that much greater.
It is a burden which is shared equally among all the newspapers of the country, large and small, because one of the functions of the Newsprint Supply Company, in conjunction with the Paper Control, is to take care to see that the stocks of newsprint are fairly and equitably distributed among the newspapers. So this burden is being felt by every newspaper in the country. It has reached a point when many newspapers, and not only the smallest, are finding it impossible to accept increased supplies, or to build up their stocks further.
This is a great misfortune, because although stocks have improved and are at a better level than they were even a few months ago, they still are not high enough for real security. We ought to have larger stocks in this country. Beyond that is the need for increased consumption. This need has not disappeared because the cost of newsprint is so high. It is still there, but it is overborne by the burden of the present high prices. This Order affects only that part of the supplies of newsprint available in

this country today. In addition to the newsprint supplied by the British mills—which is the newsprint affected by this Order—we import large quantities from Canada and from Scandinavia. The price of these imports is fixed by the contracts made by the Newsprint Supply Company.
The price of Canadian newsprint coming into this country under our contracts, as the hon. Member for Deptford said, will be about £56 a ton for the rest of this year. From 1st July until the end of this year the price of Scandinavian newsprint under our contracts will be about £52 a ton, while this Order maintains the price of newsprint supplied by the British mills at just about £64 a ton. Considering the improvement in supply and the reduction in the cost of pulp, upon which the British mills are dependent for the newsprint they manufacture here, I hope it may be possible for my hon. Friend to tell us that in the near future another Order may be expected making a much more substantial reduction in the price of newsprint supplied to us by the British mills.
Every newspaper in the country pays the same equalised price fixed by the Newsprint Supply Company—average the cost from all sources of supply—and, in view of the very big reduction in the cost of some of our imports, it is reasonable to expect that we shall be able to make a reduction in the price to newspapers, even if the cost of the home-produced newsprint remains the same. But for any really substantial relief to the newspapers in the coming months we must look to a big reduction in the price of the home-produced newsprint.
I know the difficulty of the Government. It is fair to say that the price that has been fixed by the Order has been fixed in exactly the same way that prices have been fixed since the period of control began, 12 years or more ago. It is fixed on a sort of cost-plus basis, which looks after the cost and the reasonable profits of the mills and, at the same time, is designed to protect the consumer against exploitation in a period of acute shortage.
I am not prepared to argue whether the price as it stands today is fair or not judged by the standards by which it is fixed. Frankly, I have no means of


knowing, because although the newspapers consume about 90 per cent. of all the newsprint used in this country they have never been allowed any information about the basis upon which these costings are worked out. But I do not question the fairness of the Ministry in fixing the price upon the recognised basis. Nor do I join with the hon. Member for Dept-ford in commenting upon the recent profits of the paper mills.
These profits, as they tell us, do not all come from newsprint, though it must be obvious that the profits could not have reached the record level of 1951 if newsprint had not played a reasonable part in the result. It is a fact that in 1951, while paper makers were attaining these record profits—about three times higher than they had ever been before—more than 50 of the smaller newspapers and periodicals in the country had to go out of production because they were unable to meet the heavy cost. It is not surprising if the survivors, large and small, who are still struggling against these difficulties, look not only with some envy at the figures of papermakers but wonder whether it should not be possible to make some much more drastic reduction in the price of newsprint now. What is really wrong with this Order is that it takes no account of the present state of the market as regards newsprint supplies.
Controlled prices are very necessary in a time of acute scarcity, but, when supplies become relatively easy and when the market is falling, a controlled price of this kind can possibly give too much protection to the producer and impose too heavy a burden upon the consumer. I think it is possible that we have reached that point with newsprint, but, again, the Order, as my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade may well and justly point out, fixes only a maximum price. There is nothing in the Order to prevent the mills themselves, if they feel that their interests would be served by doing so, from quoting and offering a lower price for the supplies they are able to deliver.

Sir L. Plummer: Has the hon. Member, from his long experience, ever known a case in which the mills have given a minimum price, below the maximum price, fixed by the Order?

Mr. Bishop: To be fair to the producers, I think it is right to say that

the price fixed by this Order is a price which is determined by the Ministry to be a fair one. It is not unreasonable that they should seek to stand by it.
What I am arguing is that the fair price, based on a cost plus basis, may become quite irrelevant when the markets change, supplies improve, and when there is a real danger that surplus production may appear. In my opinion, we have reached the point when there is a real danger that an apparent surplus of production of newsprint in this country may be appearing, with the consequence of short-time working, machines closing down, and men being stood off. The surplus, if such it appears to be, is only an apparent surplus because the basic need for greater consumption and the basic need for bigger stocks still remains. It would be a tragedy, just at a time when better supplies are coming forward and when a possibility exists of some of the desperate, acute shortage we have been suffering from being made good, if a consumer found it impossible to take up a supply which is available because the price is too high.
The only remedy for that is to take the drastic step of cutting the price much lower, but whether by means of a new Order or by the voluntary action of the producers themselves, I cannot say. I do feel very strongly, however, that if grievous trouble is to be avoided, not only for the newspapers but for the producers of newsprint, too, the time has come when a really much more drastic cut, and a lowering of the price of newsprint to find its level in the markets today, should be brought about.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I should very much like to have supported my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade on the first occasion on which he is answering a debate, but I feel that the circumstances of this case make it quite impossible. I am satisfied that the case is made out for a fresh review of the price situation not only in the interests of the general consumer but in the interests of the mills. The price, as my hon. Friend has said, has been doubled in the last two years. To introduce a slightly controversial note, had it not been for the unfortunate cancellation of those Canadian newsprint contracts I do not believe that the Scandinavian prices


would have risen as they have in the last 18 months.

Mr. Holman: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in the last 18 months—roughly from December, 1950—practically every grade of paper from Scandinavia has gone up proportionately.

Mr. Shepherd: I am aware of that. I believe it to be the case that had it not been for the unfortunate cancellation of the newspaper contracts with the Canadians we should not have seen this increase to the regrettable total of double the price of 1950. The British mills at the moment are trying to get the best of both worlds. They have agreed that the replacement value is the only basis upon which to work, but when there is a prospect of even a small fall they want to maintain roughly the same sort of price.
I am in some sympathy when they say that a great deal of their increased profit arises from the increased value of their stockholding, but if that is fair and true they should be prepared to take some reduction which might not be wholly justified on the existing replacement values. What I should like my hon. Friend to do is to try to get a little more public confidence, and confidence as far as the newspapers are concerned, in the price arrangement he has with the mills. It is obvious that this price arrangement at the moment is under suspicion.
I do not think that the average consumer of newsprint really believes that the arrangement that now exists, the scrambling of prices, and the inquiries by the accountants, result in a fair arrangement. They are not satisfied that the price arrangement is working equitably. It is most important, if we have to have an artificial price, that all buyers feel that the price has been fairly arranged. I suggest that for once he might bring the newspaper people and other consumers into the picture, and let them see how the price is arranged. There is no doubt that at the moment there is considerable suspicion and lack of confidence, and that ought not to continue.
It has been said that while the profits of the mills have gone up three times the number of newspapers that have gone out of business has increased considerably. That in itself is a condemna-

tion of the position. Then there is the effect on the advertisers. They are an important section of the community, although I do not think they evoke much sympathy from either side of the House. But I think advertising has a real part in our national life.
As the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said, many newspapers will not take more newsprint because they cannot afford to do so. They cannot get sufficient advertisements to make an allocation of fresh newsprint profitable. They cannot get enough advertisements to support the additional newsprint. Rates have gone up so high that advertisers are being driven out of the market. Some of the biggest newspapers in the country are offering a cut rate to large scale buyers of advertising space.
Clearly, this means that business will not progress, and it also means that the smaller man in trade, and the growing business, are being squeezed out. The established concerns perhaps can afford to pay inflated prices, but the others cannot do so. Therefore, there is a sound social reason why there should be a reduction in the price of newsprint, an increase in the amount of newspaper per issue and a reduction in advertising costs. This will suit the mills, because they are already operating below capacity. As advertising revenue becomes more and more difficult to obtain so there will be a less inclination on the part of newspapers to take more newsprint.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that many of us feel very strongly on this issue. The time has come for the newspapers, the advertisers and the general body of the public to have a price which is fair. At the moment the mills are not operating at full capacity and they cannot take anything like the amount of waste paper which is collected. There is a need for a new outlook and I hope that my hon. Friend will look at the matter again.

11.5 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): I welcome the fact that the Prayer has been put down and I congratulate the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) on the very skilful way in which he kept in order.
This is not an easy problem, but I can quite well understand his remarks on the


profits of the two firms to which he referred. It is certainly not my intention or job to defend either the newspapers or the mills in this connection. I can quite understand the public reaction to the very large profits disclosed. I hope I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member that perhaps the situation is not quite so rosy as the newspapers have made out, as far as Bowater's and Reed's are concerned.
The hon. Member will not resent it if I say that the death of the large number of newspapers to which he referred was not caused by this Government. In saying this I am not laying the blame on the late Administration, and I am certain that we all regret it when old-established papers with great historical and local interest have to close down.
The real trouble about this problem is that we are now still dealing with the second quarter of this year, not the third. From 1st July the price c.i.f. of the wood pulp coming into the mills—I am entirely excluding imported newsprint which is processed before it arrives—will be lower. But at present we are still getting Scandinavian pulp for instance at the higher ceiling price. I must make it perfectly clear that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the annulment of the Order by this Prayer.
These arrangements have been continuing since 1939 and, if the Prayer is carried, I am advised that under Section 6 of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, no further proceedings under the principal Price Control Order could be taken and we would free the whole market from control. If that is what the House wants, —which I do not think the mills, newsprint proprietors, or the trade unions really desire—of course the House must have its way. I think the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) would agree that since 1939 these arrangements have not worked too badly.
This Order refers to home-produced newsprint only, not to imported newsprint which is bought in bulk by the Newsprint Supply Co. which represents all the users of newsprint from the "Daily Telegraph" to the "Daily Worker," with the possible exception of one or two technical papers.

Mr. Bishop: All the newspapers, but not periodicals.

Mr. Mackeson: The large proportion of the users.
The procedure is, as far as fixing the control price is concerned, that the accountants of the mills submit to the Paper Control a statement of the cost of production. The cost of raw materials is estimated at replacement cost. That is a very important point, because at the moment the situation is that without any doubt these mills have made a very large profit because the value of their raw materials has gone up. The value of their raw materials has now fallen and they will take the knock on the fall.
Broadly speaking, most Scandinavian newsprint is coming into this country at present at about £70 a ton, and will, we hope and believe, come in at £50 a ton after 1st July. There is a rather different situation in Canada and there the price of newsprint has recently gone up by £4 to £56 a ton. I can give the House this categorical assurance. In the middle of July my noble Friend will review the whole of this situation. We cannot do it today by revoking this Order, because we are still buying Scandinavian woodpulp at £39 a ton.

Mr. Ede: Which of the hon. Gentleman's noble Friends is this particular one?

Mr. Mackeson: The noble lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister of Materials, whom I have the responsibility of representing in this House.

Mr. Jack Jones: Where do his constituents come in?

Mr. Mackeson: My constituents?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman said he represented the noble lord. I am only asking where his constituents come into the picture.

Mr. Mackeson: It looks as though prices of the raw materials will fall and we shall be able to review the whole position and reduce the price of newsprint. That, of course, is a difficult matter to forecast. I fully appreciate the criticism of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman). He pointed out the apparent divergency in prices. This is due to a time lag. It may well be we shall not be able to reduce the price of


newsprint as much as we hope. We think that on the whole, however, if the market goes as we hope we shall be able to reduce it a good deal more.
It would be rash of me if I made a promise to the House that we could afford to scrap this Order or give any guarantee of how low we can fix the price of newsprint. It does appear that the market is running our way, but it would be a rash man who gave a categorical assurance; but we hope to be able to take steps in about a month.

Mr. Holman: The Government has reduced the ceiling on pulp recently by 20 per cent. on sulphide and 5 per cent. on mechanicals. Why is it that newsprint is about the only paper I know of that has not already notified a reduction corresponding to the new prices and costs that are known to be coming into operation? The Swedes have reduced the price of newsprint by £20 a ton from 1st July. Why cannot the price review of this controlled paper be carried out quicker than the middle of July?

Mr. Mackeson: I think the hon. Member was out of the House when I tried to explain that we are still working on the second quarter prices. After 1st July it may be a different situation.
It would be wrong to attempt that now when we are actually buying these materials at the former price—because that is the price at which they are coming in c.i.f.—but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will deal with this matter in July, and I hope very much that we shall be able to issue an Order which will fulfil the wishes which I fully appreciate are shared by all Members in the House.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am sure that those of us who are not technically acquainted with this industry must have been impressed by the knowledge displayed by my hon. Friends the Members for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman), and the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) in the speeches which they have made. Indeed, I would not have thought it was possible to generate so much passion as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green, of all people, dis-

played in the course of his speech on so apparently prosaic a subject.
I am glad that the Secretary for Overseas Trade has recognised the evident feeling on both sides of the House in this matter. I am quite certain that the House will look forward with keen anticipation to the further deliberations of his noble Friend and himself on this subject when they see what is to happen after 1st July. We hope that will mean that there will be a substantial reduction in the actual price being paid by the various newspapers and publications for the newsprint that they have to use.
We all regret that some of the papers that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford, which used to give very considerable pleasure and enlightenment to not unimportant sections of the community, even if not numerous sections, should have disappeared from the bookstalls. We can only hope that with the lowering of the price it may be possible for some of these or similar publications again to appear.
My hon. Friends have, I think, achieved the purpose for which this debate was originated. Clearly, it would be foolish of us to press this Motion to a Division even if we had the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite who have supported us in speeches, because we should then merely deny the trade the reductions that this Order brings about. But I hope that we shall find that within the next few weeks the intervention of the Secretary for Overseas Trade in this debate will be followed up by deeds worthy of the sentiments he has uttered tonight.
In those circumstances, I advise my hon. Friends to be content with the speech to which we have listened from the hon. Gentleman, though, of course, if his next Order does not give us satisfaction we may have to find some way of raising the matter again.

Sir L. Plummer: I would, of course, very much like to press this matter to a Division, because the support we have had from the Opposition benches indicates that the Government would be defeated and it would give me the greatest pleasure to defeat this Government. But, in view of the words of wisdom of my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — LITTER

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Butcher.]

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: The subject which I want to raise on the Adjournment tonight follows not too inappropriately the debate we have just been discussing. It is the litter, by which I mean paper, cigarette packets, tins, bottles, orange peel and other objects which are all too frequently scattered about in public places, in the streets, in the countryside, parks and everywhere else. It follows not inappropriately because, unfortunately, newsprint is one of the main ingredients of the litter which is scattered about.
I first raised this subject about two years ago, when I asked about the Royal Parks; and the then Minister of Works replied. What has prompted me to raise it again tonight are some representations which have been made by the Rotary Club of Wembley to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) and myself. I think I am right in saying that the matter concerns several Government Departments, but the reason I chose the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is because that Department is responsible for local government and I believe that any action taken falls on local authorities more than on anybody else; and may I add that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for his presence tonight.
First of all, I would refer to the Royal Parks. Two years ago, according to the answer given by the then Minister of Works, after the Whitsun holidays, 1950, 45 tons of litter were swept up from the Royal parks in the centre of London; and the following week-end, no less than 72 tons were swept up. This year, from an answer on the subject by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Works, the position is a little better, for only 11 tons were collected after Whitsun, of which 6¾ were in litter baskets; and, of course, there I have no complaint. But the remaining 4¼ tons were on the ground.
The total rubbish swept up after public holidays in 1951 from the Royal parks was 53 tons, and this year, up to date,

32½ tons. I am not sure whether the figure for this year is quite comparable with 1950, but, if it is, then there is a slight, but welcome improvement. In 1950, the then Minister of Works said that the cost of sweeping up this litter was no less than £8,500 a year; and that is a rather shocking figure.
From that, may I pass on to the L.C.C. parks, which include not only enclosed spaces like Dulwich Park, but unenclosed areas such as Clapham Common and Hampstead Heath. I am told by the Chief Officer of the Council's Parks' Department that about 25 tons a week are picked up from the whole of the L.C.C. parks, and that, during fine weather, and particularly at holiday times, large quantities of litter are left lying about, especially on the unenclosed open spaces. He told me that records were not kept, but that the weekly total was about what I have stated, and he could not give the cost of clearing this away because the work was carried out by staffs in the course of their normal duties. But, it will be readily appreciated that a considerable amount of time must, therefore, be spent on this work which could be given to more useful employment.
A short time ago, I looked round St. Pancras and King's Cross stations. It was just after Whitsun, and I found litter not only outside the stations, and especially where newspaper vendors had been at work, but also in the stations and the forecourts, and on the tracks themselves, where I imagine, some of it had been swept when the platforms were cleared. Many places in the provinces seem to be collectors of litter; some hon. Members will know Town Moor, New-castle-on-Tyne, which is an appalling sight after any public holiday. Other hon. Members could cite equivalent places.
I cannot help looking at the floor of this Chamber, if it is not out of order to mention it. It perhaps does not look so bad at this moment as it did after the all-night Sitting last week. I made some inquiries of an attendant I found cleaning it up after that all-night Sitting and I was told that it took two men about an hour to clean up the Chamber. That, of course, included not only the sweeping up of the litter, but vacuuming and other necessary things. Nevertheless, a man with a stick had to go through the receptacles among the benches in order to scrape out the papers torn up and


squashed into them. I often wish that we could set a rather better example in this Chamber than we do.
I will not say anything about the countryside. That is another subject in itself. I would mention that in looking round the Stationery Office the other day for quite another purpose I found an excellent book called "Country Code," which gives a page on the danger of leaving litter in the countryside—a danger which might not be obvious to those of us who live in towns—of leaving not only paper, which is unsightly, but also things like tins and bottles hidden in ditches or drains where they interfere with the drainage of the land.
What is the remedy? I think that it needs a national campaign. As a slogan there is an excellent example in "Country Code," namely, "Leave no litter." I suggest that it would be an appropriate time to launch a campaign of this kind, particularly in view of the number of overseas visitors we can expect here next year for the Coronation. It rests largely on local authorities under the inspiration of the Government to carry it out.
Incidentally, in one of his answers to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling), two years ago, the then Minister of Works said:
I am at present in course of organising an anti-litter campaign."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2478.]
I take it he meant in the Royal parks, which I think is all he is responsible for, but, unfortunately, not much of a campaign seems to have materialised.
The second thing that is needed is more litter baskets. I was looking in the roadway outside King's Cross and St. Pancras on the occasion I referred to earlier, and I found only two litter baskets. More could be provided, and I suggest that the cost could be met from advertisements which could be fixed on them, as they were on the two I saw. I understand that there are no fewer than 20,000 litter baskets in New York City, which is a comparatively small area.
I got this information in a letter from the Commissioner of the Department of Sanitation of New York City, who says:
We have found that the employment of some 20,000 wire litter baskets has greatly

aided our efforts towards cleaner streets. In heavily trafficked areas such receptacles are placed on both sides of the street. There is one at the end of each block, and flanking containers mid-way in each block, thus pedestrians with newspaper wrappers or similar litter to dispose of have a convenient repository. Studies indicate that each of such baskets can collect between 3,000 and 4,000 pounds of litter annually. Without them much litter would find its way into the street where it would be an added problem for our sweepers.
I hope that our local authorities will take an example from New York.
The third thing I would suggest, drastic though it may sound, is prosecutions. In answer to a Question in October, 1950, the then Minister of Works did say that between July and October of that year there had been one prosecution of a person depositing litter in the Royal parks. The present Minister of Works told me not long ago that there had been no prosecution in recent months. I believe that more prosecutions, coupled with the measures which I have suggested, might have some effect on this appalling problem.
May I just stress the main points? I think that the cost of sweeping up litter all over the country for a year must be enormous. I know it is not possible to calculate it; but if £8,500 was the cost of sweeping it up merely in the Royal parks in central London in 1950, the cost must be gigantic when all the streets and open spaces of the country are considered. There must be an appalling waste of labour in dealing with the problem, particularly when so many industries and occupations are still short of labour.
My third point is the general untidiness and unsightliness caused in town and country by people who leave litter all over the place. For these reasons I hope that something can be done to remedy the present state of affairs.

11.31 p.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: I am glad to have the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) in the useful debate which he has inaugurated. As he pointed out, the Wembley Rotary Club wrote to both of us expressing concern at the way people throw down litter in the streets, in parks, and in the countryside, and at the cost borne by local authorities in the collection of this refuse.
I confess that I was shocked by some of the confirmatory evidence which I had a fortnight ago. I was listening to a broadcast of the Test Match commentary from Leeds, and in the late Saturday afternoon I was astonished to hear the commentator refer to the disgraceful amount of litter which held up play and threatened prematurely to end cricket for the day. I checked this with reports in Yorkshire newspapers, and a sporting journalist, in the "Yorkshire Post," began a sentence with this picturesque description:
Close to the day's end, when cricket threatened to be capsized in heavy seas of litter sweeping across the green…
Such befouling of the nest is not confined to Leeds. It is too common at many sporting arenas, in the parks and at places of entertainment. At Wembley Stadium, although deposited litter is not above the average for stadia throughout the country, rarely are the litter receptacles filled, and the refuse appears to differ according to the type of sporting event. Song sheets and newspapers form the bulk of as many as 150 sacks of litter taken after a football match, while speedway and greyhound racing events seem to induce ice cream cartons and bottles.
I was greatly surprised when, one evening, I had occasion to return to a local cinema in search of lost gloves, at the astounding amount of litter accumulated on the floor and laid naked by the upturned seats and the ceiling lights. There is, perhaps, excuse there, because as far as I know receptacles are not provided. Therein they are like this Chamber, although in this Chamber I think we have the excuse of a tradition which shows that we have at least attempted to do a day's work. Lest the House should infer that Wembley is a town of much litter, I hasten to point out that the local Director of Public Cleansing is satisfied that the 80 litter receptacles—which number, I fear, compares unfavourably with the number for New York, which my hon. Friend quoted—placed in the highways are well used. Bus stops attract ticket litter and kiosks and refreshment houses are centres for any litter to be found in the parks.
In Wembley we have had a local bye-law, dating from 1947, which makes a litter offender liable on summary conviction to a fine of £5, but there is no evidence of any recent prosecution. The

problem is a national one. We should have a national campaign for a tidier country and national organisations such as Rotary itself, the Boy Scouts, and so on could be used to help in it. If we did have such a campaign this year promoted, or at least encouraged, by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, we might have a tidier and more attractive country for Coronation year, when countless visitors will be in our midst.

11.35 p.m.

Sir Edward Keeling: My hon. Friend who initiated this useful debate was unable to make any estimate of the amount of litter thrown down and the cost of clearing it up. Before the war the Association of Directors of Public Cleansing made an estimate that not less than 100,000 tons of paper alone was thrown down in the towns of this country and not less than £1 million was spent in picking it up. The expenditure today must be at least double that and the figure of quantity cannot be less.
In the country, too, it is quite a serious matter. The National Trust owns many of our finest open spaces and spends many thousands of pounds a year, especially after Sunday or a Bank Holiday, in clearing up the mess. We all know this is, or was, a free country, but we pay too high a price for the freedom to make a mess.

11.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The House will be grateful to the three Members who have spoken on this quite important subject. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), who said that he was keeping me up late. In fact, it is much earlier than I am normally kept up in this House and elsewhere. On his observations about the amount of litter in this House being somewhat great, I would point out that there are no receptacles for litter and that most of the litter is on the Opposition benches.
My hon. Friend suggested that New York City is a model that this country might emulate. On my frequent visits to New York in the last four or five years, my feeling was that I would not like London to look like that, especially not


like the side streets. New York's main streets are very well lit and to some extent reasonably clean, but the narrow streets in between are certainly not well lit and contain a great deal of litter.
Let me turn to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus). I was at the Cup Final this year at Wembley, when Newcastle United came from the North-East and beat the 10 men from London. There was an amount of litter there that did not do credit to the visitors to my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the Test match in Yorkshire. I agree with him, it was not right to have all that litter there. I come from Lancashire and I always feel that the second best county in England ought to take an example from Lancashire, where there is hardly any litter after a Test match or a match between Lancashire and Yorkshire. Of course, there are not many runs scored either.
May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling), that we all realise the valuable work he has done in connection with litter in the country? On Saturday last, I spoke to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, at Sheffield, and the message I gave them was that if they wanted to do this country a service the best thing they could do was to inculcate into their members a sense of responsibility and declare that they themselves would not leave litter about and that neither would they allow anyone else to do so.
One of the difficulties between town and country is the farmers' continual complaint that the town dweller goes into the country, leaves litter about and gates open. It is up to the people who visit the country to respect the rights of the farmers and leave no litter about. If I may come to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South, I would say that litter is primarily the problem for the local authority, although the Ministry of Works has a responsibility in the Royal parks and the sites of ancient monuments. Local authorities have the power under the Public Health Act, 1936, to provide receptacles for refuse in streets

and public places. The cleaning of streets is carried out by local authorities.
The main difficulty in prosecuting people is that it is extremely hard to spot who is responsible for leaving litter about. It is one thing to say litter is left about. It is another thing to identify the particular person responsible for leaving it. Even when the byelaw, which has a maximum penalty of £5 and has been widely adopted by the county and borough councils throughout England and Wales, has been adopted, magistrates tend to impose a light fine, when a prosecution is brought. It is disheartening when magistrates inflict a light fine and it is no deterrent to the leaving of litter in the streets.
With regard to the National Parks, which are the particular concern of the hon. Member for Twickenham, the Act of 1948 enables planning authorities—that is, the county and county borough councils—to make byelaws about behaviour on land in the parks which they own. No byelaws have yet been made as the whole National Park scheme is not far advanced But the National Parks Commission, which has a duty to prepare and publish a code of conduct for people's guidance, has issued the "Country Code," of which I have a copy here. This was on sale at the meeting of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, at Sheffield, on Saturday last. It formulates the rules of good conduct in the country, one of which is to leave no litter. I hope that hon. Members will press the sale of that excellent pamphlet in their own constituencies.
My hon and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North suggested that the Government should start a campaign. A vigorous campaign has been going on for over a year, but it may not be vigorous in relation to the other startling facts which face us, such as the balance of payments, the housing drive, and so on. It started in April, 1951, for the benefit of Festival year and has continued ever since. I agree that there cannot be too much publicity about litter and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South, has done a valuable service in raising this matter tonight.
Twenty or 30 years ago, when I was much younger than I am now, and I used to indulge in my walking activities in the


country, the problem of litter was very much worse than it is now. The education which has gone on this last 20 or 30 years has undoubtedly borne some fruit. It has not been as fast and effective as I and my hon. Friends would like, but, nevertheless, it has made some progress. People are more "litter conscious" and public-spirited, and despite what seem to be deplorable cases, particularly after public holidays, it is probably true to say that things are improved and improving. It is most difficult to compare one year with another, because so much depends on the weather. If it is a wet day, very few go into the parks, and if it is fine a large number do so.
During the last year the London Transport Executive and the Railway Executive played a big part in displaying posters. So did the R.A.C., the A.A., and the C.T.C., as well as various business organisations. The women's organisations also gave assistance, and more than £1,000 was spent on official display material. The Ministry of Works gave 2,000 special plastic symbols for use in the Royal Parks and on the South Bank site the anti-litter arrangements were extremely successful. Nine hundred litter bins were used altogether, and the greatest success was obtained in Battersea Park, where the bins were illuminated to attract the public eye and almost impelled people to hurl their litter into the receptacles.
Films issued by Universal and Gaumont British News were shown in 2,000 cinemas. The B.B.C. joined in the campaign and reference has been made in the programme, "We Beg To Differ," in which the people concerned are all females, with the exception of one controversial male. Local authorities were asked to help in two ways, first by

displaying printed publicity material and, secondly, by drawing public attention to the problem. But they could help more effectively. I am not always sure that our posters are as effective as photographs. There is nothing more effective than a photograph of Hampstead Heath or one of the beauty spots in the Lake District, or some of the spots in the North-East, after a public holiday.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Even including race week at Newcastle?

Mr. Marples: Yes, I hope that this debate, and the stimulating presence of the hon. Gentleman, will have the effect of ensuring there is no litter at Newcastle this week.
The real difficulty, however, is that a small minority of people can create a deplorable effect. It only needs a few people to make a distressing mess on the ground. There are many posters, some of which can never appear in HANSARD, but which are very attractive. I cannot display them for my hon. Friend, but I would like to give him a copy afterwards. The slogan of them is "Keep Britain Tidy." I am asking my right hon. Friend to consult with local authorities to ensure that they should make a tremendous drive, especially during Coronation Year, to see that this country can set an example to the world in keeping its streets, its open spaces and particularly its countryside, free from litter during that great year.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eleven Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.